Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:43, 2 January 2006

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

January 2

Template:User GWB

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time ;-). In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism :). That's just my opinion though :). I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... -

Bourbons3^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Comparing the subject of the RFC to Stalin? Attack and WP:NPA violation. Rx StrangeLove 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as free-speech statement on Wikipedia. The person being referenced to in this box did indeed act very Stalinist in their quest to delete userboxes, especially political ones. --Cjmarsicano 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't you see that that comment that you have just made is a personal attack in itself? Can't you bear to imagine that Kelly may have been acting in good faith? [[Sam Korn]] 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template, block transcluders. WP:NPA. —Cryptic (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as a single-use template, which is stupid. Don't make templates you're only going to use once. Don't make templates to attack other users. Don't be an idiot. Phil Sandifer 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cj. The person in question acted in an un-diplomatic way in deleting the userboxes, without discussing it with anyone. People have got to stop being so touchy about things, thinking everything will offend everyone - when it wont. And even if it did, so what. People have the right to show their opinions without fear of being scrutinized. Anyone who acts like that is the idiot! «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated"

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a lot of variations of it by now -

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rather support the speedy deletion. In short, WP:NPA and agree with Zach above. I also support deletion of any forks that liken User:Kelly Martin to Stalin. "No personal attacks" is one of our most fundamental policies. Anyone who feels that this policy is hypersensitive may prefer to find a different form than Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I endorse the speedy deletion as an attack page. Apart from that, only you can prevent ForestFires, and people who absolutely insist of having such a template can come up with a non-offensive one themselves. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That "meatball" crap isn't policy. Firebug 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but there's no policy against linking to things that aren't policy. :P -- grm_wnr Esc 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and censure User:Snowspinner for his repeated defiance of Wikipedia policy and process. Firebug 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been speedied. Any re-creations will likley see the author blocked straight away. Harro5 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone has the authority to revoke an out-of-process deletion. Why bother with WP:TFD at all if admins can go around willy-nilly deleting whatever they want? Firebug 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a personal attack. Do not recreate it. [[Sam Korn]] 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not and was not a personal attack. It is a call against an abusive admin. So tell me, at the rate things are going, since we already have Wikipedia is not a democracy, when is Wikipedia is a fascist state going to be created? -- Cjmarsicano 00:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For your information, this template was "created" by User:El C. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's completely untrue.--Sean|Black 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not completely untrue, just mostly. What El C created says "This user actively participated in the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again." What this template says is "This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again." Likening yourself to Stalin is in poor taste. Likening someone else to Stalin is a personal attack. —Cryptic (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, missed the "rebellion" part. It still is based on his, though. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / support speedy this contributes nothing to building an encyclopedia (or a community). It is time to stop this userbox stupidity before it gets any more out of hand.--Doc ^ask? 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a attack template --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears identical to me, so my above statement stands. Delete template, block transcluders. WP:NPA. —Cryptic (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This omits the link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin so it cannot reasonably be interpreted as a "personal attack" (which has itself been read in a ludicrously broad fashion, to encompass almost any criticisms). Firebug 23:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ridiculous. If I write "That user is a fuckwit", not naming him directly or linking to his page doesn't make it any less of a personal attack. Everyone knows exactly what you mean by it. —Cryptic (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, what kind of criticisms (if any) do you think fall short of NPA? Or is ANY criticism of admin actions a personal attack? How convenient. Firebug 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't a matter of censoring criticism. See Wikipedia:Introduction to learn the purpose of Wikipedia. Harro5 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't you dare condescend to me; I've been here just as long as you have. The reason we have policy is to enable us to more easily get on with the business of creating an encyclopedia. Kelly's absurd deletions have caused a major distraction from that. Thousands of man-hours have been spent on arguing these issues, time that could otherwise have been used to work on articles. That is why we don't just let admins do whatever they want. Firebug 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Get this: personal attacks are not on. Whatever Kelly may or may not have done, you must not make personal attacks. Full stop. [[Sam Korn]] 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comparing someone to Joseph Stalin isn't "criticism". —Cryptic (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, useless and polarizing.--Sean|Black 23:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needlessly inflammatory, under the circumstances. – Seancdaug 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and deleted this as a personal attack. Harro5 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly was not. Inflammatory, yes, but in order to qualify as a personal attack, presumably it would need to, y'know, actually attack someone, which it did not. – Seancdaug 23:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it did. It likened people deleting userboxes to Stalin. How is that not a personal attack? [[Sam Korn]] 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it's not personal, obviously. It clearly refers to an action (the deletion of userboxes) and not a specific person or group of people. It refers to an event (the "purge") and not its perpetrators. This is, of course, wildly uncivil (not to mention sort of Godwinny), and you'll notice that I support it's deletion. But it does not fall under any our personal attack policy. – Seancdaug 00:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, keep deleted or otherwise make it go away. I'm quite liberal with user boxes, but this does not advance the mission of writing an encyclopedia in any remote way. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nobody can take humour. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would have voted delete, but I can't see it to decide for myself, so abstain with concern. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack, or speedy delete as CSD G4 - a re-creation of deleted content. Basically, this message cannot appear on Wikipedia at all. Harro5 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I believe attacks on this level should be deleted, and constitute grounds for blocking those who use it. —Cryptic (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently we're going to be censoring user pages and subpages, too. How wonderful. -- Cjmarsicano 01:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a attack --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ITEM ALREADY DELETED BY ITS CREATOR. Are you all happy now? --Cjmarsicano 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I, for one, do not consider myself a censor, and resent you referring to us as such. —Cryptic (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I resent the censorship. Vehemently. --Cjmarsicano 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - While you might resent censorship, there are standards to uphold on Wikipedia, and not allowing personal attacks is one of them. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meanwhile, the so-called "target" the userbox is referring to is waiting for the fuss to die down so that she can abuse her admin privleges by mass-deleting userboxes she disagrees with. So, when are the Wikipedia standards going to include brown shirts? --Cjmarsicano 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of a previously deleted personal attack that was removed by the author. Let's get this thing out of the history, and, frankly, if the user believes that censoring comparisons of users to people who murder millions of people makes Wikipedia a fascist state, the door is that way. Lord Bob 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only WP:CIVIL that is standing between your poor attitude and my burning desire to give you a physically impossible suggestion. Have a nice day. --Cjmarsicano 06:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A6 revisions flushed. I don't see a problem with the remaining two - sort of a light protest I guess. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as creator of both, can I authorize a speedy here? Not sure of the current rules for templates. {{MDmusic}} is preferred, and I am gradually switching all the states to use it. Hawaii is done, so this template can be safely deleted. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*-court

Delete. These templates are my proudest work on Wikipedia, but they've been deprecated in favor of the smaller year-to-year templates. So be it. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep -

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. --Cjmarsicano 02:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly is this a speedy delete? You were complaining earlier about templates being speedied ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Speedy delete for a user group that the apparent majority doesn't like? That's hardly grounds for a speedy, and arguably even a delete. -- Jbamb 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy to see a template for a now defunct/redefined project deleted. But be aware that the nom was sanctioned for his trolling/vandalism with regard to this project. --Doc ^ask? 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The project is dead, so there's no need for the template any longer. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Aside from copyright issues, it's overly specific.--Sean|Black 07:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carnildo — Mperry 08:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — EagleOne\^Talk 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. – Seancdaug 23:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not needed since there's nothing special about the copyright status of Angel episodes compared to any other TV-series. - Bobet 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This is a call to arms and totally lacks NPOV. Practically unused at present but ought not to be allowed, whatever one feels about the great Userbox debate of New Years' Eve. David | Talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once this gets through due process (7 days) the whole fiasco would have either ended or blown out of proportion. In either way it will no longer be required. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, this simply serves as an informative navigational tool not located on any mainspace articles. Therefore NPOV standards for articles do not quality. Therefore Keep. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious delete, but I don't know that we really needed to spread this forest fire onto another page. In any case, the template isn't just practically unused, it's completely orphaned (its links are to the template, not transclusions), and I should point out that I just blocked User:N000] for violating 3RR on it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's only purpose is to, IMHO, to bash the person who is subject to the RFC. If you wanted people to know about the RFC, you could have just provided a link on the project talk page. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 00:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets substed again by another anon, I'm speedying. Pure trollery. —Cryptic (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poof. —Cryptic (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy even. --Loopy 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted. The reason why it appears as a blue link now is that I added {{deletedpage}} to it. However, I still think there is forks of it somewhere on here. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 03:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it as the deletion was out of process. On the in-process deletion, I abstain. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or speedy userfy. Totally inappropriate. -- SCZenz 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per above comments. Martin 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (which I have already done once in accordance with the above). — Dan | talk 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-1 23:50

December 31

Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Loopy 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant template fork. - Bobet 01:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav^(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark ¹ 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rules governing usage of complicated royal naming in Wikipedia are laid out in the Manual of Styles and Naming Conventions pages. A small minority of users regularly try to make up their own versions of names that are factually incorrect and which are contrary to the MoS and the NC agreed format that covers 800+ articles. This template is used to deal with users who ignore appeals from a large number of users who have repeatedly pointed out that all the articles in an encyclopædia need to follow the same structure and format. As usual Dan didn't check his facts. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per FearÉIREANN. Wikipedia is lagging behind in developing mechanisms for ensuring community adherence to the MoS and the NC; these and other templates are thus essential for correcting that problem. 172 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick and efficient way of informing users of the MoS and reduces the risk of revert wars over style: if everyone actually knows of the MoS, then the likelihood of one crossing it reduces a lot. Izehar 19:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per FearÉIREANN. Per Netoholic, hopefully only to be used as last resort in exteme casess. Herostratus 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or modify to get rid of "vandalism". As it stands, it runs contrary to the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. (And the bolded Stop doing it is inappropriately peremptory. Even the templates for true vandalism use the word "please".) AnnH ^(talk) 20:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Persistant reversion against styles (and nov) is so often just "professional" vandalism. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- per Jtdirl

Template:Mess2

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Stbalbach 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another ridiculous nomination (part of the course with Dan). This template is used to deal with people who post in personal comments and other information into articles. Only yesterday someone posted in a five paragraph commentary on an article into the text - "I don't think this article is accurate because . . . " . The template was created after a number of users asked if something could be created to be put on user pages asking users not to post messages in articles. This was happening so regularly that various users dealing with vandalism were fed up having to write a new message every time. So a standard template was drafted and is being used in these cases. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is evidence that irrelevant personal comments are not being inserted. Deb 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FearÉIREANN. Quite useful. Actually, looking back I should have used the template when dealing with the messes made by KDRGibby yesterday. 172 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this template is obviously useful - vandalism is not limited to "PENIS!" Izehar 19:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don't understand this one. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Jtdirl Astrotrain 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you look at the templates, then the numbered ones exist specifically for the purpose of naming the source documents that could be added. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
- 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [1] is PD (Office of War Information).
- 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
- Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I get the impression that this whole thing is very confusing. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it seems like a pretty harmless userbox. I feel that until a consensus has been reached on what userboxes to keep and what to throw out, we should err on the side of inclusionism. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete user boxes. Larix 13:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Larix. However, I was wondering, since when are fair use images illegal for userboxes? --D-Day 14:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since longer than user boxes have been around. See WP:FUC, and WP:FU before it was split out. —Cryptic (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we get a consensus on userboxes in general and I suspect that will be a pro-userboxes one, even though I'm not too fond of them myself - but if they don't run against any other policy or guideline I see little harm in them, and even then these are mostly {{sofixit}} problems and not {{soputitontfd}} problems. Maybe userboxes have jumped the shark, but so has nominating them for deletion. To the anti-userbox faction: Stop cluttering this page. To the pro-userbox faction: A joke doesn't get any funnier if you put it in a template and plaster it all over the User namespace. Thank you for listening and goodnight, grm_wnr Esc 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If someone wants to create the opposite, that's OK with me. Bubba73 (talk), 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me know if anymore unique userboxes come up for deletion. I'm an automatic keep. karmafist 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Copyright issues are sorted, but it seems like users are in favor of the userbox. I'll take my attention elsewhere. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Delete — No longer used orphan. Gateman1997 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also add similar templates for the Template:MLB Giants franchise, Template:MLB Padres franchise, Template:MLB Dodgers franchise, [[Template:MLB Mariners franchise, Template:MLB Angels franchise, Template:MLB Rockies franchise, Template:MLB Yankees franchise.Gateman1997 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Replaced by Template:MLB Team Oakland Athletics -Scm83x 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vw

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful for what? What does this do that {{test}} doesn't? Firebug 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you have neither read them nor dealt with vandalism or you would know the answer to such a silly question. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)
Delete. Redundant with {{test}}. android 79 21:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for inital warnings when the circumstances look a bit too intentional for {{test}}, but not severe enough to jump to {{test2}}. In effect this is {{test1.5}}. In adition, since this warning does not use the "test" language, it is better when the user is clearly not testing, and the standard wrnign could well be simply confusing. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep forks of user talk templates. (Really!) No need to clue the vandals in that these comments are standardized. If you got the same test1, test2, test3 messages in a row as you did last week, would you have any chance of thinking they were from a human, and thus worth listening to? —Cryptic (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't imagine any but the dullest of vandals would fail to realize that {{test}}, et al. are standardized language. If I couldn't use templates for vandalism warnings, the messages I would leave wouldn't be as verbose as these; not anywhere close. android 79 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with {{test}}. --IByte 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Delete Maybe move into the test series (ya, why NOT test1.5??), but this one is useful as it addresses a different kind of fooling around than test1 does. If this gets nuked I hope that some one person chooses to userify it and lets people know about it, as I'd use it, but why fork another copy into my own userspace just for me? I think a variety of templates that address different situations is a good thing. Within reason. Or should we all fork our own copies? ++Lar 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I recant... I found this: {{TestTemplates}} and that has a lot of them. I just didn't know about all of the ones there were. ++Lar 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep! I use this on a daily basis. Tufflaw 03:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way I see it, this template is more suitable when a user has made several test edits and hasn't been warned. Royboycrashfan 04:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason for deletion presented, not redundant. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{test}}. Dan100 (Talk) 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Jtdirl. 172 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but wikipedia needs a fundemental relook on how we deal with vandalism. Their is too much consensus on avoiding the issue. Djegan 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the multiplicity of boilerplate test messages is absurd. If you need to customize what you say that specifically, consider just writing something instead of trying to find the perfect Hallmark Card for blanking George W. Bush. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks!, same thing --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful. More ridiculous nominations from the Deletion Police. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More ultra-specific templates with only two or three words different from standard vandalism templates. As for "Rn4", just how many times do you expect to use a template to chastise someone for changing "thousands of royal article files", anyway? It looks to me like this template is the result of one person's edit war with one other person, and will never be applicable to any other edit war. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism templates. The use of any of these ultra-specific templates almost requires a failure to Assume Good Faith on the part of the other user, and a lazy refusal to discuss the disagreement with the other person. Aumakua 22:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. The only occasions when a user can be blocked is laid down by the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Dan100 (Talk) 09:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it's problematic to threaten to block people for a nonblockable offence. And given the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, I think it's also wrong to have: "Any more deliberate vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia." As long as the 3RR rule isn't violated, I can't imagine an administrator blocking someone for inserting "Her Majesty". As far as I know, before the MOS was changed, people weren't blocked for removing "Her Majesty". AnnH ^(talk) 18:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The debates on these things are closed. Deleting these templates will simply re-open those debates, and we'll be back to square one. Denelson 83 20:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Jtdirl DES ^(talk) 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when you get to your fourth revert (very often "playing" 3RR) against common sense you need a stern warning. Their is too much consensus in wikipedia on how to avoid dealing with vandalism and the like. Its time to get tough. Djegan 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jtdirl. 172 21:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above - Charles 03:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. They are rude and will only scare away newbies. Vandals seldom heed those warnings anyway. --Ezeu 03:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the newbies want to contribute, they should follow the rules, this has been debated to death. Prsgoddess187 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adding "Her Majesty" to an article on royalty is not vandalism, no matter how much the royalty enthusiasts would like it to be. Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May have occasional uses, but it's also terribly easy to misuse. It also gives the wrong impression about WP:BP. As much as I wish admins could block people for rampant stylistic changes, we just plain can't. -- SCZenz 16:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not block contributors for MoS violations. Firebug 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android 79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

~~These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per grm_wnr. Apart from the added images (although as grm_wnr said, I don't see a problem with them), these are not ads in any way, they're merely external links. -- Parasti 19:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem with this. --Liface 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any problem too. Visor 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find MusicBrainz to be very useful. Also, its content is public domain (and some parts are licensed under creative commons) and anyone can edit. Doesn't that remains you another wonderful website ? ;). I don't think the image is needed, it's just prettier like that. We should use MORE templates for more websites, so the all links would be colorful and pretty ! Hum. --pankkake
I generally don't edit or even read music articles, so I don't know how widespread links to this site are (the templates almost certainly won't cover all of them), so neutral on deletion. But the images should definitely go. —Cryptic (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- MB artist: ~270, MB album: ~134, MB track: ~1 —Mperry 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems useful. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rhobite, I oppose the deletion of this template. Your reasoning is not sufficient for deletion to take place as you have not proven that the template meets the criteria for deletion. You state that the templates "give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz." That's the point of the template. They exist to link to the MusicBrainz database so that users might conduct further research about an artist and their works. MusicBrainz is a non-commercial, community developed site much like Wikipedia. It makes all database data available as either public domain or licenced under the CreativeCommons license. It is maintained by the MetaBrainz Foundation which is a legally registered non-profit organization funded by donations and the sweat of volunteers. Under these circumstances I fail to see how such links support your claim that they are ads. I don't see you calling for the removal of the IMDB template. IMDB is a commercial, for profit company with a non-free license for their data. Regarding the icon, I feel that it should remain. Its existence allows the user to quickly see the meaning of the link that follows. The user knows that clicking the link will provide them with more information from the MusicBrainz site without having to read and mentally parse the list. This can be very important when there is a long list of links such as in The Beatles article. It's the same principle that is used on computers to show lists of files. The icons help give context to the name so that the user's brain can more quickly identify the purpose of the text. If you still feel that this template should be deleted, I look forward to your detailed rebuttal. —Mperry 22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Mperry. I can't see anything wrong with this template; in fact I find it quite useful. The icon is a nice touch. — flamingspinach | (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As strong as I can make it Keep: I modeled this template off of the MusicBrainz permanent link feature. I seriously recommend that you read the MusicBrainz article. It does for music what wikipedia can't. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Oh, and for the record, the images are GPL, so there is no fair use problems with them. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody said anything about them being removed due to fair use issues. They should be removed for the same reason we disallow sisterproject-like boxes for sites that aren't sister projects. Their use improperly elevates these external links above others, and they're purely decorative - they add no information whatsoever to the articles they're on. —Cryptic (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely, as per Mperry. --Loopy 06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These templates are incredibly useful. Soothing R 12:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Larix 13:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As I understood, one aspect of Wiki was to encourage linking to other analogous non-profit/open-to-all-style database projects. MusicBrainz deserves the template AND image. IMO, it's not unfairly elevated, rather it's deservedly elevated. No way I would support deleting this. - Liontamer 21:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. MusicBrainz often has links to Wikipedia articles on artists as well. As far as I can tell, most MusicBrainz users try hard to add Wikipedia links. What I'd like to know is why this is still up for deletion: only the person who originally put it up for deletion is against it.
Stronger Than Dirt Keep per all previous supporters. --Cjmarsicano 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basically what the above has stated. Sorry for the little input added, it's better than no input. Douglasr007 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. R adiant _>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

The template

‹ Templates for discussion ›

has been

proposed for deletion

(used subst: to help its survival) Weird, isn't it? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the name is silly, and because we already have {{Solution}}.--Sean|Black 10:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sean Black. Compu ter Joe 10:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template's a bit tricky, because it implies that Wikipedia is breaching some form of intellectual property by revealing the solution. If the trick is copyrighted, the information probably shouldn't be in wikipedia - and as such, the template is redundant. If it's not copyrighted, then the template's overkill - all we'd need is {{solution}}, as Sean points out. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper template for these cases is {{magic-spoiler}}, not {{solution}}. —Cryptic (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aaah, that's what I was looking for. {{solution}} was the only thing I could find browsing WP:TM.--Sean|Black 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is part of an ongoing attack on the "secret" parts of numerous magic-trick articles by a host of vandals, called to arms on magic-related mailing-lists. Their particular unfavourite is King levitation (check out its history), and the creator of this template has already indicated his intention to use it on that article (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic). There has been considerable discussion on this matter by magic-interested Wikipedians, including an RfC at Talk:Out of This World (card trick). There's an overwhelming consensus that the secret information concerned should be retained. The fallacy that IP law prevents this disclosure has been explained at great length to the vandals at the above locations, and again at Talk:King levitation, but they don't seem to have any regard for facts. This template is antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with most of the above, the user who created this template isn't one of the vandals who've been blanking magic articles; see his contributions. I read this more as an attempt at a compromise. —Cryptic (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of Magicians. (With props to JRM for the line.) Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Smoke it. -- Jbamb 14:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. -- It's redundant, implies that wikipedia is doing something wrong (It's not, but if it were, then the text should be removed, not taged with this), and for all the other reasons mentioned above. Kenj0418 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and User:Kenj0418. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to suggest Make it vanish (to be cute), but I'm swayed by the compromise argument. Still, how does it help to be able to look things up but then not make use of them? Seems sort of like the Security Risk template, doesn't it? If it's OK to talk about these things here (but I am not sure WP needs to explain how magic tricks work does it?) then we should not require everyone that comes here to take a secrecy oath. It's unworkable anyway! SO... I dunno. I think the problem lies deeper than the template and answering whether WP should have trick mechanics is what to work on. ++Lar 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consumer magic industry should not recieve special protection. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But no tricks are "off limits for exposure". This is an encyclopedia, and if we talk about a trick, we would be remiss if we didn't explain how it works.--Sean|Black 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everything above. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Off-topic

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

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon reflection, I've changed my mind. Still a tad specific, but okay.--Sean|Black 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH ^(talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH ^(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH ^(talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

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

Question: Couldn't that new date field be integrated into template:NPOV? ~~(Without category thing, I don't think we need to categorize that by date)? Adrian Buehlmann 10:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep. Helps Jbamb doing his work. Let's let him try this and see how it flies. Adrian Buehlmann 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be yes, I created it and asked for comments on it. There are over 1400 NPOV disputes, sorting by date would be able to quickly isolate the real stale issues, and that certainly would be helpful for me since I'm cleaning them up. -- Jbamb 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- IF (big if) this is something that we want to do, it should be discussed on Template talk:POV and integrated without creating this fork. As such, there is no need for this template. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Been trying to discuss it several places, no one seemed interested in discussing the matter... Jbamb 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then let the idea die. -- Netoholic @ 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but discuss a merge at Template talk:POV. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

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

Delete per nom. -- Jbamb 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Kenj0418 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

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

Delete, never been used, and creating templates for every individual company defeats the purpose of having a template in the first place. - Bobet 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

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

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

Template:OS-icon-key

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

Template:If equal g

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

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

Comment — it's not a failed try, it's the mother of them all _→AzaToth 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ups. Sorry. Should have taken more care and doing my homework first before writing. Adrian Buehlmann 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per me _→AzaToth 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

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

December 29

Template:ROT13

Delete — Failed experiment to ROT13 old talk page archives. Was used on the Talk:Elvis Presley archives. cesarb 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everyone knows double ROT13 is more secure. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I agree with Locke Cole; in-fact we should encrypt all of wikipedia with 2ROT13 and then use the DMCA to prohibit unauthorized decryption. Kenj0418 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
qryrgr, jung n fvyyl vqrn! -- grm_wnr Esc 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- V jbaqre, jvyy lbhe ibgr or pbhagrq yvxr guvf? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - bzt, vg'f abg n ibgr!!!1 -- grm_wnr Esc 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - This was cute the first time, but enough, please. While I'm sure there's a Firefox rot13 extension, it still leaves the rest of us scratching our heads. —Cryptic (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncategorized

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

delete self-defeating in other ways, too, since the editor - in the time taken to write {{Uncategorized}} - could just as easily add at least a general category to the article. In other words, this simply doubles the editorial work. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in September 2005 and kept. Nothing has changed since then, and the template has remained useful. Keep. Uncle G 06:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oddly enough I just used this today; when you're not sure where to categorize an article (but you know it needs a category), this is better than leaving the article as-is. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This unbreaks Special:Uncategorizedpages, which only displays the first thousand entries and is rarely updated, so doesn't show anything past the B's. Keep. —Cryptic (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seen it used alot, and also per Cryptic --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need this template, Special:Uncategorizedpages is redundant and not useful. - Darwinek 09:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I assume the nominater did not know that this template also places the pages it's used on in a special category for uncategorized pages, as such this template needs to stay.Deathawk 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: forgot to signe my name the last time, so I updated my edit to reflect that. Deathawk 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 2

Not used. Replacement: template:web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: It's really not used. At the present situation the compatible template:web reference can be used without breaking articles if somebody finds a leftover call of web reference 2 (I think I got them all converted to web reference). To Neto: you can act on template:web reference then at one strike. Or do you want to convert an old fork of web reference, too? Adrian Buehlmann 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates were made over a year ago. Uncle G 06:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We may need this because eventually the citation templates will have to stop using meta-templates. Multiple similar templates may have to be re-implemented as the solution. -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: kill it with a stick. A lot of work has gone into reducing the absurd number of forks of these reference templates: please do not let us revert back to the old situation (certain people want to deprecate the use of templates for references entirely: don't give them any leverage by making endless forks like there were before). —Phil | Talk 11:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 4

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

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

Template:Infobox University5

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

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

Template:Web-reference

Was a redirect to Template:Web reference. Deprecated and defunct. Adrian Buehlmann 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: the original creator wrote in the edit summary of the first revision "'ve mistyped this one too many times. Making the redirect, so I won't have to do it again.". Maintaining templates is already quite a hard job. Adding redirects for typos of heavy use templates is just a bad idea. Adrian Buehlmann 10:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Incomplete license

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

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

Template:Tuberculosis

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

Template:European communist parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like the images. It is not an unimportant matter, as the choice of symbolism also denotes political differences. Compare KPÖ/PCF with KKE, for example. Or note that some parties include national colours and other don't. BTW, aren't all communist parties Leninist by definition? --Soman 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: templates take up a lot of space on articles, and there's already either a politics or a "political parties in" template for most countries. When do we stop? That said, I think it's essentially a useful template. Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Jiang. There is no criterion for excluding the countless minor parties that are even considered fringe groups by even the members of the larger Communist parties, such as the anti-revisionsist Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, etc. Soman's comment is well taken; but note that the template name is "European communist parties," as opposed to a title that specifies that we are dealing with the historically Soviet-aligned parties (i.e. the ones listed in the template at the moment). 172 11:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Psychonaut - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality law

Template:User ai kago-5

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

Delete everything in the series and all associated categories. Usercruft. android 79 06:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is orphaned and unlikely to be used; note that I'm principally against deleting it just because it is usercruft. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two of them, specifically Ai Kago-4 and Ai Kago-5. Those two clearly crosses the line on appropriateness. Ai Kago-1 and Ai Kago-2 looks fine, Ai Kago-3 is a little disturbing and somewhat of a border case in my opinion, but hey, if that's what float's the person's boat. ;-) --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in series: unused, unlikely to be used (some things are even too esoteric for Wikipedia). But for the record, I'm not sure "appropriateness" is a proper standard for deleting userboxes. However, utility -- or at least the likelihood of being used -- is. If someone wants to express this opinion on their userpage, they can use the {{Userbox}} template without having to create a new template. -- Tetraminoe 06:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, this one is just too bad. Ian¹³_ID:540053 12:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually think these deltion proposals are becsue people are touchy, but this userbox is just.....wrong - Bourbons3^Talk 17:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer leniency on userboxes, and this one seems to be in good fun, but how many others explicitly state a desire to have sex with underaged people? I'd rather not start seeing Emma Watson userboxes, that's just edging up against the line of creepy. Night Gyr
Comment. I made this series of userboxes in fun, with my personal intention being that they could be changed on the user's userpage as the mood arose. Can we please userfy them instead of deletion? As for the age issue... not that I ever intended anything, but it'll be moot on February 7th, 2006 anyway as she'll be legal then ; --Cjmarsicano 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New comment. If you'll all excuse me for being bold, since I initially made these userboxes for myself and would hate for them to be bounced, I'm going to userfy them all. Happy new year. :) --Cjmarsicano 06:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Todo, trains

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

Delete now that it has been replaced with a generic todo template and the appropriate wikiproject notice. —Phil | Talk 10:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It uses Category:To do, trains so project members can quickly get to the associated todo lists. I think substituting another template in while this discussion is still ongoing is poor form; the changes should not have been made until this debate ended. Slambo (Speak) 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the category (wrapped in <noinclude> tags) to all of the todo subpages that were transcluded through this template, so the category argument is less relevant now. My vote is now abstain. Slambo (Speak) 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Slambo. We should not be overly eager to delete. Slambo said this is still in discussion so we should be kind and let that float for now. That group should discuss this first. Adrian Buehlmann 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)I finally groked that Phil already changed the calls to the generic to do. I see no point in reversing that work. Changing my vote to Delete. Adrian Buehlmann 09:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace. The category brings up a peculiar issue; while this is a template fork, which I would ordinarily vote to delete, the template can be moved to the WikiProject's subpages, which then preserves the desired functionality. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really bad practice to move a template into another namespace while still using transclusion. It's hard enough to maintain the Template: space. This function is just as usefull if you replace it with Template:Todo. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Slambo's description of usefulness and Titoxd's suggestion on how not to fork in mainspace but preserve usefulness. ++Lar 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to preserve functionality.--Lordkinbote 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIP

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

Strong Delete. No Wikipedia article is a "work in progress by one author", and nobody needs "permission to edit this page". Useless at best, fundamentally anti-Wiki at worst.--Sean|Black 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, instructions are blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from the one article it was attached to. Any objections to a speedy? This violates so many Wikipedia fundamentals that there's no chance it will be kept. android 79 01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, people can't own articles. {{inuse}} can be used if someone really needs to do a major edit. And having non-stub templates add pages to Category:Stubs hurts too. (I wouldn't be against a speedy, and since this has gotten 4 votes in 10 minutes on tfd, it looks like people really don't like it.) - Bobet 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Inuse. Very logical name for it. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cryptic. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered by inuse and incorrectly implies ownership.--SarekOfVulcan 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Template:Inuse already exists and appears to be better designed. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRL Grounds

Template:Freenet links

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

If a large number of pages (like more than ten) use this template then obviously there is a need for it and it shouldn't be deleted. If there is enough need to warrant keeping it, then I think the original article should be moved to a more appropriate space, as the AfD debate can be summed up as "I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something?"

I forget how to check template usage, but obviously if this template is deleted we lose some external links which will need to be removed or otherwise fixed. --TexasDex 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Template:Atlanta conventions

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

Delete it is also an orphan --Chris 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if no article uses the template, then does the template really exist? --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 09:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use - Bourbons3^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete lolling pin! - FrancisTyers 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see this has been deleted already, but wouldn't having a convient tag marking all of the good stuff have made it easier on the bad guys? I mean, why go searching for stuff when you can just go straight to everything marked Security Risk.

COMMENT

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Is that a legal threat I smell? We have nothing more to clarify to you, you are the one who is being deliberately vague and mysterious. --Golbez 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT There is nothing vague and mysterious about the clear security risk that posting photographs and addresses of diplomatic missions on this website poses. Supporters of known terrorist groups are permitted to freely edit, distribute and create materials here. The template itself was deleted before due process granted. I am suggesting that traffic emanating from and directed to this website be blocked from the servers of certain legal jurisdictions in order to prevent the further spread of misinformation as well as tools that may allow terrorists to create havoc.PeterZed 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to explain why it's a security risk to have the British Embassy's address on Wikipedia, when it's plainly visible on their webpage. Since you have not even bothered to answer this, which has been asked multiple times, I am forced to disregard you as a minor, but persistent, troll, someone who has absolutely no desire to assist international security and is just poking and prodding us for what I must assume to be your own amusement. --Golbez 23:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only think that letting this TFD finish would do is lower the percentage of votes in favor of it. Unless you got some of your "security proffesional" colleagues to come and vote. --Chris 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

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

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

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

Of course, I could have done better on the wording, but it could solve the problem with the template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it works, because this rewrite is now in the actual template, and the below votes indicate this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. --Chris 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it appears the objections have been met. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewritten version. -- Natalinasmpf 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the template goes no way to actaully providing information on the copyright of the image, and I tyhink will prevent people following up on the copyright of images that are not in the public domain. I would suggest including a field for the actual image page in the template.--nixie 04:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language/Malayalam

See below - identical template.

Template:MalayalamScript

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

Comment: Sukh emptied the category, changing all previous uses of {{MalayalamScript}} to {{IndicText}}. Thanks/wangi 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks?? The Malayalam template was presumably created after being vetted by the usual long process, now somebody summarily empties the category without so much as a by-your-leave?? I am speechless. ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Is what I previously said really unclear? Template creation requires a long vetting process. So does deletion. When the process is defined, and debate here is ongoing, why did you (Sukh) take it upon yourself to empty the category? ImpuMozhi 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being blind, but I certainly don't see the 'long vetting process' that this template went into. And I merely changed the existing four uses of the template BACK to the original Indic template. It is a wiki after all... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

My Answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well for starters, Malayalam was only added on SP2. The reason IE works and Firefox doesn't is because IE calls the international text API (Uniscribe) directly whereas Firefox doesn't. You need to physically enable complex text support on your computer for it to work. See the link on the IndicText template for full instructions for ALL Indian scripts: Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The term "Indic" and its subsequent direction to the appropriate page is sufficient. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With all due respect to Malayalam script, the function this template is supposed to provide - "help" steps - remains the same irrespective of if its Malayalam or other Indian scripts. Hence, one template can do. However, replacing the original image of {{IndicText}} with a kind of crooked India flag seems inappropriate. Suggestion - you may want to consider CDAC illustration where one character each from many Indian languages is indicated. (This may defeat the purpose of showing the change in rendering though). --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The IndicText tag is far less obvious than the MalayalamScript. Tintin Talk 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Indic scripts (including Tibetian and some SE Asian) require the same browser fix, and are covered by the same template. India flag is thus inappropriate. Fighting over which script to use in the template to illustrate the point is a waste of time. deeptrivia (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What would be better, have 20 or so different templates for scripts of all the major languages in India, or one. If the Malayalam template is kept, then others such as Tamil, Bengali and Gujarati would have to be made. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Indic Script is an all inclusive term hence there is no need for separate Malyalam script warning! अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 6

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

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

Template:Dichotomouskey

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

Template:Infobox UNSecGen

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

Template:Footer UN Secretary-General

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

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

Template:Saskatchewan

delete or categorize — This navigational tempalte is so large it overshadows every article it is on, and is ~80% redlines. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, it is a redlink farm, and it is very obtrusive. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modify,Rather than delete it, can it be modified? For example instead of the long list of districts, how about a single entry to point to the listing of thse districts? Cadillac 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless radically pruned. - SimonP 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modify and keep besides the red-link farms (most of which will eventually be created, as I'm actually surprised there's no Politics of Saskatchewan already), it's a near-standard templete:see {{quebec}}, {{ontario}} and {{BritishColumbia}} for refenrence, also all united states templates. The thematic links obviously have to go, and the template needs standardization, but I believe deletion is over the board. Circeus 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Bigfoot. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. It serves the same function as similiar ones for other provinces. --Rob 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It definitely needs to be chopped down to a reasonable size but there is no reason that the province should be without a template, and this is a start. The appropriate action is to edit, not delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As long as other provinces and states have similar templates, there's no viable reason to treat Saskabush any differently. Keep, with whatever modifications are appropriate. Bearcat 09:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Although, it needs some fixing up which I will do now. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once modified. --Loopy 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Album infobox 2

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

December 27

Template:Battlebox no campaign

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

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

Template:the pillows

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

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

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

Keep - Pretty much what Cyde said, it's good for navigation between albums, and the members thing has been taken care of. --Itamae 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyde and Itamae. — Wackymacs 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please I created this template so it would make it easier for me and others to get to the albums and edit them. Alus 22:30, 28 December, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This template makes perfect sense to me. --Phoenix Hacker 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed the edits made, but, unfortunately, I still see the need to delete it, for a very good reason: the albums can be accessed from three places--the artist page, the album pages (granted, by chronological access), and through the category. Having a template to access the albums is little more than superfluous and unneccesary. Had the artists still be included, but linked to existing articles (a la Template:The Sugarcubes), then I would retract my nomination. --JB Adder | Talk 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack on population center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 26

Template:US City infobox

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

Keep - it's a redirect that is useful. There's also no way to know if any articles still use that. A page may call "US City infobox" but the Whatlinkshere will show a link to the target of the redirect, not the redirect itself. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a technical question: I thought the "What links here" clicked on the redirect page (the one that contains the #redirect instruction) lists all articles that refer to the redirect. Am I wrong? Adrian Buehlmann 09:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No you are not wrong. [2] I'm not clear why Netoholic said what he did; the redirect is plainly not used anywhere, merely referenced in discussions and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pick some random articles from the Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox U.S. City. Now, you'd think that those would all call that template directly, but you're wrong. I picked Portland, Maine and as of this note, it is using "{{Template:US City infobox|". The link skips the redirect and refers to the redirects target instead (not listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:US City infobox. It may be a bug or a feature, but redirects have been working like this for at least a couple weeks. -- Netoholic @ 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's annoying. I was puzzled as to why there was anything listed at all in Whatlinkshere, but it seems that only wikilinks to the template are listed, not actual template calls. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I could reproduce that. Thanks for the example. I thought I had found all instances of articles that still use the redirect "US City infobox" (old name of the template) but I didn't due to the incomplete "what links here list" on the redirect. I think that's a bug, but maybe I just cannot see for what this behaviour should be good. Well, however changing my vote to Keep. Adrian Buehlmann 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Netoholic is correct here, and this is a deceptive bug/feature. I noted that performing a null edit on Portland, Maine did not correctly update the Whatlinkshere list either. This is frightening in light of the recent movement to delete stub template redirects, as the effects of such deletions (i.e., a red link at the bottom of pages previously flagged as stubs) would go unnoticed for a greater period of time. For related discussion, see [3] — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:27, Dec. 27, 2005
- actually, not at all - we've been working with the problem at SFD for some time. Didn't realise no-one here knew about it. As far as stubs are concerned, since all stub templates have dedicated categories, it's simply a case of a manual or bot-assisted check of all articles within the category. With templates that have no dedicated categories, though, it could be a fairly major problem. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  For what its worth, this was listed at VPP several weeks back. It was reported after first being noted on WP:SFD in early November (see Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Template redirects). Not sure whether anyone filed a bug report, and unfortunately the Village pump isn't archived that I know of and I can't recall what the outcome of the discussions there was - but it is a known bug. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk1

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

Template:Plumed Basilisk2

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

Template:Pulmed Basilisk

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

Template:Mos4

Delete: This template contradicts principle 2.2 from the jguk 2 case. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Mos2-3, and half of its category. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Jbamb 17:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srleffler 19:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid. More Wikipedia Deletionism Gone Mad. With nominations like this is it no wonder so many top quality Wikipedians are quitting the site in frustration. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are leaving because templates threatening them are being deleted? What a load of bollocks, Jtdirl! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. violet/riga (t) 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-word to align with Mos3, and re-word to make intention clearer, and note that this template applies only to changes that do nothing except deliberately deviate from MoS. Any edit that adds content does not count. Neonumbers 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- after all, the MoS itself contradicts this template in the first paragraph. Neonumbers has a point, though...--SarekOfVulcan 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't block good editors over style issues. Firebug 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, or Fix and Rename. "Those rules are mandatory" it says, in direct contradiction to the MoS itself (see Template:Mosblock discussion above). If it said "Those guidelines are optional, but should only be altered for good reason, with consensus. Edits deliberately against consensus may be considered vandalism, and result in you being blocked." then I might support keeping it under the name Mos2, so long as it was never used as a substitute for discussion, and never used in contradiction to WP:AGF. There is absolutely no need for Mos3 or Mos4, just use the vandalism templates. Aumakua 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jtdirl The arbitration ruling makes sense if one takes principle 2.2 to mean that the contents of the MoS are changeable and not set in stone. Kelly Martin is correct in alluding to the instances in which MoS guidelines are contradictory and thus may have to be ignored and/or modified with good reason. Her comments are well-reasoned as usual. However, principle 2.2 does not negate the possibility of violations of the MoS guidelines that do reach the level of vandalism. For example, if an editor goes against consensus on a universally accepted principle of the MoS in order to push a POV or to harass other editors, it is clear vandalism, and the user should be blocked. 172 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template is blatantly incorrect, and would not be necessary if 'twere correct. This is legalism gone mad. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UT-Austin

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

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

Delete - Gigem Aggies! I mean uhm, yeah ...its a duplicate, thats it! --Naha|^(talk) 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Template:Infobox Proprietary Software

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

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

Template:Flensburg infobox

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

Template:Equatorial Guinea infobox

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

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

Template:PureStates

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

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

Template:User Feminist

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 24

Template:Infobox BridgeSpecificWithMap

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

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

Template:Infobox Police Officer

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

Reluctant delete, yes it does seem too specific, and prone to encourage memorials which are unencyclopediatic. — Eoghanacht ^talk 10:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the idea is not to encourage memorials. It is to pay tribute to those warriors who are living today and those who have left this world. I see that Wikipedia is being infiltrated by editors who wish to bring politics into these situations. A few rogue Vandalizers should not be able to wield power in such a negative way.CelebritySecurity 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not the place for memorials. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a memorial. It part of an ongoing effort to encourage information about living and deceased warriors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_law_enforcement_officers Please respect the hard work of others and the political implications of your actions. Reminder: This is "free" encyclopedia. The overhwleming effort by certain individuals/admins here on wikipedia to both vandalize and eliminate those parts of the encyclopedia that include a broader focus on law enforcement issues is alarming and should be of concern to those who believe in freedom of information. CelebritySecurity 18:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOT a soapbox, either. android 79 18:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Prone to encourage" memorials can be said about ANY of the biographical infoboxes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebritySecurity (talk • contribs)
- That's not right; that's not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nomination. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Only used on two articles, which are themselves up for deletion". Adrian Buehlmann 21:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...the idea is not to encourage memorials. It is to pay tribute... Guy, you contradict yourself almost immediately. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor a soapbox. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly specific. --Wikiacc (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 02:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it lends credence to the idea that memorials should be part of the 'pedia. --NormanEinstein 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the standard is if the template has any legitimate use, not whether it "might" be abused, or whether newbies have a mistaken idea about what Wikipedia is for. Firebug 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Srleffler 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (template, not idea): I disagree with the arguement its just for memorials, or encourages them. At least one of two uses, Mark Bourque is clearly not a memorial, but is somebody who's been written about in the media long before he died. Also, it's worth reading WP:NOT carefully. It's against people who's only claim to fame is being fondly remembered by friends and family. This is analogous to why we give bio articles to people with hit singles (even short term) but not those who just sing to the locals. National media attention *may* indicate concern beyond the friends and family. The only reason I'm not voting keep, is I find the this particular template, as it stands now rather useless. It's rather oversimpliefied, and I would rather people actually write out the information in paragraphs. Officers with lengthy and varied careers would not fit neatly in this box, and those are the very people I want articles on. --Rob 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful, encourages bad articles. --Improv 09:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rob's comments.--SarekOfVulcan 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Early Muslim conflicts

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

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

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

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

December 21

Userfy

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

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

- - Comment As far as i know, templates outside tempalte space now work just fine -- i have tested several in my user space before moving them to template space, and I have a couple for personal use that stay in my user space. But i don't know what the problems were before, so i can't be sure that they are gone. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Templates in userspace work fine these days, so I would prefer if the various users mentioned here moved these templates to their userspace. But I see little point in deleting them. R adiant _>|< 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Pointless and frankly absurd nomination. It is this sort of nonsense that gives this page and the whole deletion process a bad name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if it works in user space now, that's where it belongs. -- Jbamb 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a userfy would hurt, but don't delete them. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfying sounds reasonable. There's no need for them to be in the template space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Single user templates like these in the Template namespace aught to have a speedy-move criteria. ^Blank^Verse 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy against moving anything belonging to a user, or only used by that user, into that user's userspace (but it would be nice to ask the user first). Userfy, no problems with speedying. R adiant _>|< 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - obvious course of action. Thanks for finding all these AzaToth, sorry to see your hard work called "pointless" and "absurd". violet/riga (t) 10:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Those silly kids need to stop emptying their sand-filled boots on ~~Jimbo's~~ ~~the cabal's~~ our floor. Cernen 11:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless where they are. Larix 12:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jtdirl. 172 23:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

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

Tools

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

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

Template:AMQ2024 May 26 – AMQ ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:FMQ2024 May 26 – FMQ ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_tropical_cyclone2024 March 10 – Infobox_tropical_cyclone ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_storm2024 March 10 – Infobox_storm ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

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

Navigation templates

Link templates

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

Other

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

I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional 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)[reply]

Template:Archive2023 December 7 – Archive ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Automatic_archive_navigator2023 December 7 – Automatic_archive_navigator ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Archive_navigation2023 December 7 – Archive_navigation ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
I've ported the missing parameters from {{Archive}} to Module:Automatic archive navigator/sandbox. I'm in favor of renaming the module and changing {{Archive}} to use it, while redirecting {{Automatic_archive_navigator}} to Archive. I'd really appreciate if a template-editor could give this a look. — mw (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the discussion at Template talk:Automatic archive navigator about whether or not these parameters should be ported over. |prev= and |next= from {{archive nav}} will definitely need to be added though. --Trialpears (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that discussion, thanks. If it turns out that they shouldn't be ported, feel free to revert my edits. I'll look into the other params later.— mw (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Facebook_page2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 May 22 – Infobox_mapframe/doc/templatedata ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_mapframe/doc2024 May 22 – Infobox_mapframe/doc ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
2024 June 24 – Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:MarvelAni-trademark-copyright2024 June 24 – MarvelAni-trademark-copyright ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To convert

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

2023 October 25
- Template:R to related2023 October 25 – R to related ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} as appropriate
- Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia2024 April 25 – Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Audio-ar2024 June 6 – Audio-ar ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Audio-cs2024 June 6 – Audio-cs ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Audio-da2024 June 6 – Audio-da ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Audio-de2024 June 6 – Audio-de ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Audio-es2024 June 6 – Audio-es ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Audio-pl2024 June 6 – Audio-pl ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Audio-ru2024 June 6 – Audio-ru ( 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.

None currently

To orphan

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

None currently

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

January 2

Template:User GWB

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time ;-). In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism :). That's just my opinion though :). I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... -

Bourbons3^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Comparing the subject of the RFC to Stalin? Attack and WP:NPA violation. Rx StrangeLove 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as free-speech statement on Wikipedia. The person being referenced to in this box did indeed act very Stalinist in their quest to delete userboxes, especially political ones. --Cjmarsicano 21:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't you see that that comment that you have just made is a personal attack in itself? Can't you bear to imagine that Kelly may have been acting in good faith? [[Sam Korn]] 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template, block transcluders. WP:NPA. —Cryptic (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as a single-use template, which is stupid. Don't make templates you're only going to use once. Don't make templates to attack other users. Don't be an idiot. Phil Sandifer 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cj. The person in question acted in an un-diplomatic way in deleting the userboxes, without discussing it with anyone. People have got to stop being so touchy about things, thinking everything will offend everyone - when it wont. And even if it did, so what. People have the right to show their opinions without fear of being scrutinized. Anyone who acts like that is the idiot! «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated"

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a lot of variations of it by now -

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rather support the speedy deletion. In short, WP:NPA and agree with Zach above. I also support deletion of any forks that liken User:Kelly Martin to Stalin. "No personal attacks" is one of our most fundamental policies. Anyone who feels that this policy is hypersensitive may prefer to find a different form than Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I endorse the speedy deletion as an attack page. Apart from that, only you can prevent ForestFires, and people who absolutely insist of having such a template can come up with a non-offensive one themselves. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That "meatball" crap isn't policy. Firebug 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but there's no policy against linking to things that aren't policy. :P -- grm_wnr Esc 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and censure User:Snowspinner for his repeated defiance of Wikipedia policy and process. Firebug 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been speedied. Any re-creations will likley see the author blocked straight away. Harro5 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone has the authority to revoke an out-of-process deletion. Why bother with WP:TFD at all if admins can go around willy-nilly deleting whatever they want? Firebug 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a personal attack. Do not recreate it. [[Sam Korn]] 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not and was not a personal attack. It is a call against an abusive admin. So tell me, at the rate things are going, since we already have Wikipedia is not a democracy, when is Wikipedia is a fascist state going to be created? -- Cjmarsicano 00:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For your information, this template was "created" by User:El C. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's completely untrue.--Sean|Black 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not completely untrue, just mostly. What El C created says "This user actively participated in the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again." What this template says is "This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again." Likening yourself to Stalin is in poor taste. Likening someone else to Stalin is a personal attack. —Cryptic (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, missed the "rebellion" part. It still is based on his, though. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / support speedy this contributes nothing to building an encyclopedia (or a community). It is time to stop this userbox stupidity before it gets any more out of hand.--Doc ^ask? 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a attack template --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears identical to me, so my above statement stands. Delete template, block transcluders. WP:NPA. —Cryptic (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This omits the link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin so it cannot reasonably be interpreted as a "personal attack" (which has itself been read in a ludicrously broad fashion, to encompass almost any criticisms). Firebug 23:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ridiculous. If I write "That user is a fuckwit", not naming him directly or linking to his page doesn't make it any less of a personal attack. Everyone knows exactly what you mean by it. —Cryptic (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, what kind of criticisms (if any) do you think fall short of NPA? Or is ANY criticism of admin actions a personal attack? How convenient. Firebug 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't a matter of censoring criticism. See Wikipedia:Introduction to learn the purpose of Wikipedia. Harro5 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't you dare condescend to me; I've been here just as long as you have. The reason we have policy is to enable us to more easily get on with the business of creating an encyclopedia. Kelly's absurd deletions have caused a major distraction from that. Thousands of man-hours have been spent on arguing these issues, time that could otherwise have been used to work on articles. That is why we don't just let admins do whatever they want. Firebug 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Get this: personal attacks are not on. Whatever Kelly may or may not have done, you must not make personal attacks. Full stop. [[Sam Korn]] 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comparing someone to Joseph Stalin isn't "criticism". —Cryptic (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, useless and polarizing.--Sean|Black 23:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needlessly inflammatory, under the circumstances. – Seancdaug 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and deleted this as a personal attack. Harro5 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly was not. Inflammatory, yes, but in order to qualify as a personal attack, presumably it would need to, y'know, actually attack someone, which it did not. – Seancdaug 23:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it did. It likened people deleting userboxes to Stalin. How is that not a personal attack? [[Sam Korn]] 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it's not personal, obviously. It clearly refers to an action (the deletion of userboxes) and not a specific person or group of people. It refers to an event (the "purge") and not its perpetrators. This is, of course, wildly uncivil (not to mention sort of Godwinny), and you'll notice that I support it's deletion. But it does not fall under any our personal attack policy. – Seancdaug 00:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, keep deleted or otherwise make it go away. I'm quite liberal with user boxes, but this does not advance the mission of writing an encyclopedia in any remote way. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nobody can take humour. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would have voted delete, but I can't see it to decide for myself, so abstain with concern. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack, or speedy delete as CSD G4 - a re-creation of deleted content. Basically, this message cannot appear on Wikipedia at all. Harro5 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I believe attacks on this level should be deleted, and constitute grounds for blocking those who use it. —Cryptic (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently we're going to be censoring user pages and subpages, too. How wonderful. -- Cjmarsicano 01:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a attack --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ITEM ALREADY DELETED BY ITS CREATOR. Are you all happy now? --Cjmarsicano 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I, for one, do not consider myself a censor, and resent you referring to us as such. —Cryptic (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I resent the censorship. Vehemently. --Cjmarsicano 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - While you might resent censorship, there are standards to uphold on Wikipedia, and not allowing personal attacks is one of them. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meanwhile, the so-called "target" the userbox is referring to is waiting for the fuss to die down so that she can abuse her admin privleges by mass-deleting userboxes she disagrees with. So, when are the Wikipedia standards going to include brown shirts? --Cjmarsicano 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of a previously deleted personal attack that was removed by the author. Let's get this thing out of the history, and, frankly, if the user believes that censoring comparisons of users to people who murder millions of people makes Wikipedia a fascist state, the door is that way. Lord Bob 06:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only WP:CIVIL that is standing between your poor attitude and my burning desire to give you a physically impossible suggestion. Have a nice day. --Cjmarsicano 06:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A6 revisions flushed. I don't see a problem with the remaining two - sort of a light protest I guess. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as creator of both, can I authorize a speedy here? Not sure of the current rules for templates. {{MDmusic}} is preferred, and I am gradually switching all the states to use it. Hawaii is done, so this template can be safely deleted. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*-court

Delete. These templates are my proudest work on Wikipedia, but they've been deprecated in favor of the smaller year-to-year templates. So be it. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep -

«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. --Cjmarsicano 02:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly is this a speedy delete? You were complaining earlier about templates being speedied ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Speedy delete for a user group that the apparent majority doesn't like? That's hardly grounds for a speedy, and arguably even a delete. -- Jbamb 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy to see a template for a now defunct/redefined project deleted. But be aware that the nom was sanctioned for his trolling/vandalism with regard to this project. --Doc ^ask? 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The project is dead, so there's no need for the template any longer. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Aside from copyright issues, it's overly specific.--Sean|Black 07:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carnildo — Mperry 08:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — EagleOne\^Talk 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. – Seancdaug 23:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not needed since there's nothing special about the copyright status of Angel episodes compared to any other TV-series. - Bobet 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This is a call to arms and totally lacks NPOV. Practically unused at present but ought not to be allowed, whatever one feels about the great Userbox debate of New Years' Eve. David | Talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once this gets through due process (7 days) the whole fiasco would have either ended or blown out of proportion. In either way it will no longer be required. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, this simply serves as an informative navigational tool not located on any mainspace articles. Therefore NPOV standards for articles do not quality. Therefore Keep. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious delete, but I don't know that we really needed to spread this forest fire onto another page. In any case, the template isn't just practically unused, it's completely orphaned (its links are to the template, not transclusions), and I should point out that I just blocked User:N000] for violating 3RR on it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's only purpose is to, IMHO, to bash the person who is subject to the RFC. If you wanted people to know about the RFC, you could have just provided a link on the project talk page. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 00:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets substed again by another anon, I'm speedying. Pure trollery. —Cryptic (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poof. —Cryptic (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy even. --Loopy 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted. The reason why it appears as a blue link now is that I added {{deletedpage}} to it. However, I still think there is forks of it somewhere on here. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 03:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it as the deletion was out of process. On the in-process deletion, I abstain. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or speedy userfy. Totally inappropriate. -- SCZenz 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per above comments. Martin 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (which I have already done once in accordance with the above). — Dan | talk 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-1 23:50

December 31

Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Loopy 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant template fork. - Bobet 01:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav^(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark ¹ 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rules governing usage of complicated royal naming in Wikipedia are laid out in the Manual of Styles and Naming Conventions pages. A small minority of users regularly try to make up their own versions of names that are factually incorrect and which are contrary to the MoS and the NC agreed format that covers 800+ articles. This template is used to deal with users who ignore appeals from a large number of users who have repeatedly pointed out that all the articles in an encyclopædia need to follow the same structure and format. As usual Dan didn't check his facts. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per FearÉIREANN. Wikipedia is lagging behind in developing mechanisms for ensuring community adherence to the MoS and the NC; these and other templates are thus essential for correcting that problem. 172 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick and efficient way of informing users of the MoS and reduces the risk of revert wars over style: if everyone actually knows of the MoS, then the likelihood of one crossing it reduces a lot. Izehar 19:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per FearÉIREANN. Per Netoholic, hopefully only to be used as last resort in exteme casess. Herostratus 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or modify to get rid of "vandalism". As it stands, it runs contrary to the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. (And the bolded Stop doing it is inappropriately peremptory. Even the templates for true vandalism use the word "please".) AnnH ^(talk) 20:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Persistant reversion against styles (and nov) is so often just "professional" vandalism. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- per Jtdirl

Template:Mess2

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Stbalbach 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another ridiculous nomination (part of the course with Dan). This template is used to deal with people who post in personal comments and other information into articles. Only yesterday someone posted in a five paragraph commentary on an article into the text - "I don't think this article is accurate because . . . " . The template was created after a number of users asked if something could be created to be put on user pages asking users not to post messages in articles. This was happening so regularly that various users dealing with vandalism were fed up having to write a new message every time. So a standard template was drafted and is being used in these cases. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is evidence that irrelevant personal comments are not being inserted. Deb 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FearÉIREANN. Quite useful. Actually, looking back I should have used the template when dealing with the messes made by KDRGibby yesterday. 172 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this template is obviously useful - vandalism is not limited to "PENIS!" Izehar 19:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don't understand this one. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Jtdirl Astrotrain 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you look at the templates, then the numbered ones exist specifically for the purpose of naming the source documents that could be added. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
- 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [4] is PD (Office of War Information).
- 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
- Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I get the impression that this whole thing is very confusing. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it seems like a pretty harmless userbox. I feel that until a consensus has been reached on what userboxes to keep and what to throw out, we should err on the side of inclusionism. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete user boxes. Larix 13:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Larix. However, I was wondering, since when are fair use images illegal for userboxes? --D-Day 14:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since longer than user boxes have been around. See WP:FUC, and WP:FU before it was split out. —Cryptic (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we get a consensus on userboxes in general and I suspect that will be a pro-userboxes one, even though I'm not too fond of them myself - but if they don't run against any other policy or guideline I see little harm in them, and even then these are mostly {{sofixit}} problems and not {{soputitontfd}} problems. Maybe userboxes have jumped the shark, but so has nominating them for deletion. To the anti-userbox faction: Stop cluttering this page. To the pro-userbox faction: A joke doesn't get any funnier if you put it in a template and plaster it all over the User namespace. Thank you for listening and goodnight, grm_wnr Esc 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If someone wants to create the opposite, that's OK with me. Bubba73 (talk), 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me know if anymore unique userboxes come up for deletion. I'm an automatic keep. karmafist 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Copyright issues are sorted, but it seems like users are in favor of the userbox. I'll take my attention elsewhere. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Delete — No longer used orphan. Gateman1997 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also add similar templates for the Template:MLB Giants franchise, Template:MLB Padres franchise, Template:MLB Dodgers franchise, [[Template:MLB Mariners franchise, Template:MLB Angels franchise, Template:MLB Rockies franchise, Template:MLB Yankees franchise.Gateman1997 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Replaced by Template:MLB Team Oakland Athletics -Scm83x 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vw

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful for what? What does this do that {{test}} doesn't? Firebug 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you have neither read them nor dealt with vandalism or you would know the answer to such a silly question. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)
Delete. Redundant with {{test}}. android 79 21:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for inital warnings when the circumstances look a bit too intentional for {{test}}, but not severe enough to jump to {{test2}}. In effect this is {{test1.5}}. In adition, since this warning does not use the "test" language, it is better when the user is clearly not testing, and the standard wrnign could well be simply confusing. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep forks of user talk templates. (Really!) No need to clue the vandals in that these comments are standardized. If you got the same test1, test2, test3 messages in a row as you did last week, would you have any chance of thinking they were from a human, and thus worth listening to? —Cryptic (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't imagine any but the dullest of vandals would fail to realize that {{test}}, et al. are standardized language. If I couldn't use templates for vandalism warnings, the messages I would leave wouldn't be as verbose as these; not anywhere close. android 79 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with {{test}}. --IByte 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Delete Maybe move into the test series (ya, why NOT test1.5??), but this one is useful as it addresses a different kind of fooling around than test1 does. If this gets nuked I hope that some one person chooses to userify it and lets people know about it, as I'd use it, but why fork another copy into my own userspace just for me? I think a variety of templates that address different situations is a good thing. Within reason. Or should we all fork our own copies? ++Lar 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I recant... I found this: {{TestTemplates}} and that has a lot of them. I just didn't know about all of the ones there were. ++Lar 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep! I use this on a daily basis. Tufflaw 03:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way I see it, this template is more suitable when a user has made several test edits and hasn't been warned. Royboycrashfan 04:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason for deletion presented, not redundant. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{test}}. Dan100 (Talk) 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Jtdirl. 172 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but wikipedia needs a fundemental relook on how we deal with vandalism. Their is too much consensus on avoiding the issue. Djegan 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the multiplicity of boilerplate test messages is absurd. If you need to customize what you say that specifically, consider just writing something instead of trying to find the perfect Hallmark Card for blanking George W. Bush. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks!, same thing --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful. More ridiculous nominations from the Deletion Police. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More ultra-specific templates with only two or three words different from standard vandalism templates. As for "Rn4", just how many times do you expect to use a template to chastise someone for changing "thousands of royal article files", anyway? It looks to me like this template is the result of one person's edit war with one other person, and will never be applicable to any other edit war. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism templates. The use of any of these ultra-specific templates almost requires a failure to Assume Good Faith on the part of the other user, and a lazy refusal to discuss the disagreement with the other person. Aumakua 22:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. The only occasions when a user can be blocked is laid down by the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Dan100 (Talk) 09:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it's problematic to threaten to block people for a nonblockable offence. And given the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, I think it's also wrong to have: "Any more deliberate vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia." As long as the 3RR rule isn't violated, I can't imagine an administrator blocking someone for inserting "Her Majesty". As far as I know, before the MOS was changed, people weren't blocked for removing "Her Majesty". AnnH ^(talk) 18:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The debates on these things are closed. Deleting these templates will simply re-open those debates, and we'll be back to square one. Denelson 83 20:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Jtdirl DES ^(talk) 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when you get to your fourth revert (very often "playing" 3RR) against common sense you need a stern warning. Their is too much consensus in wikipedia on how to avoid dealing with vandalism and the like. Its time to get tough. Djegan 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jtdirl. 172 21:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above - Charles 03:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. They are rude and will only scare away newbies. Vandals seldom heed those warnings anyway. --Ezeu 03:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the newbies want to contribute, they should follow the rules, this has been debated to death. Prsgoddess187 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adding "Her Majesty" to an article on royalty is not vandalism, no matter how much the royalty enthusiasts would like it to be. Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May have occasional uses, but it's also terribly easy to misuse. It also gives the wrong impression about WP:BP. As much as I wish admins could block people for rampant stylistic changes, we just plain can't. -- SCZenz 16:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not block contributors for MoS violations. Firebug 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android 79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

~~These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per grm_wnr. Apart from the added images (although as grm_wnr said, I don't see a problem with them), these are not ads in any way, they're merely external links. -- Parasti 19:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem with this. --Liface 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any problem too. Visor 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find MusicBrainz to be very useful. Also, its content is public domain (and some parts are licensed under creative commons) and anyone can edit. Doesn't that remains you another wonderful website ? ;). I don't think the image is needed, it's just prettier like that. We should use MORE templates for more websites, so the all links would be colorful and pretty ! Hum. --pankkake
I generally don't edit or even read music articles, so I don't know how widespread links to this site are (the templates almost certainly won't cover all of them), so neutral on deletion. But the images should definitely go. —Cryptic (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- MB artist: ~270, MB album: ~134, MB track: ~1 —Mperry 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems useful. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rhobite, I oppose the deletion of this template. Your reasoning is not sufficient for deletion to take place as you have not proven that the template meets the criteria for deletion. You state that the templates "give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz." That's the point of the template. They exist to link to the MusicBrainz database so that users might conduct further research about an artist and their works. MusicBrainz is a non-commercial, community developed site much like Wikipedia. It makes all database data available as either public domain or licenced under the CreativeCommons license. It is maintained by the MetaBrainz Foundation which is a legally registered non-profit organization funded by donations and the sweat of volunteers. Under these circumstances I fail to see how such links support your claim that they are ads. I don't see you calling for the removal of the IMDB template. IMDB is a commercial, for profit company with a non-free license for their data. Regarding the icon, I feel that it should remain. Its existence allows the user to quickly see the meaning of the link that follows. The user knows that clicking the link will provide them with more information from the MusicBrainz site without having to read and mentally parse the list. This can be very important when there is a long list of links such as in The Beatles article. It's the same principle that is used on computers to show lists of files. The icons help give context to the name so that the user's brain can more quickly identify the purpose of the text. If you still feel that this template should be deleted, I look forward to your detailed rebuttal. —Mperry 22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Mperry. I can't see anything wrong with this template; in fact I find it quite useful. The icon is a nice touch. — flamingspinach | (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As strong as I can make it Keep: I modeled this template off of the MusicBrainz permanent link feature. I seriously recommend that you read the MusicBrainz article. It does for music what wikipedia can't. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Oh, and for the record, the images are GPL, so there is no fair use problems with them. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody said anything about them being removed due to fair use issues. They should be removed for the same reason we disallow sisterproject-like boxes for sites that aren't sister projects. Their use improperly elevates these external links above others, and they're purely decorative - they add no information whatsoever to the articles they're on. —Cryptic (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely, as per Mperry. --Loopy 06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These templates are incredibly useful. Soothing R 12:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Larix 13:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As I understood, one aspect of Wiki was to encourage linking to other analogous non-profit/open-to-all-style database projects. MusicBrainz deserves the template AND image. IMO, it's not unfairly elevated, rather it's deservedly elevated. No way I would support deleting this. - Liontamer 21:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. MusicBrainz often has links to Wikipedia articles on artists as well. As far as I can tell, most MusicBrainz users try hard to add Wikipedia links. What I'd like to know is why this is still up for deletion: only the person who originally put it up for deletion is against it.
Stronger Than Dirt Keep per all previous supporters. --Cjmarsicano 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basically what the above has stated. Sorry for the little input added, it's better than no input. Douglasr007 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. R adiant _>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

The template

‹ Templates for discussion ›

has been

proposed for deletion

(used subst: to help its survival) Weird, isn't it? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the name is silly, and because we already have {{Solution}}.--Sean|Black 10:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sean Black. Compu ter Joe 10:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template's a bit tricky, because it implies that Wikipedia is breaching some form of intellectual property by revealing the solution. If the trick is copyrighted, the information probably shouldn't be in wikipedia - and as such, the template is redundant. If it's not copyrighted, then the template's overkill - all we'd need is {{solution}}, as Sean points out. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper template for these cases is {{magic-spoiler}}, not {{solution}}. —Cryptic (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aaah, that's what I was looking for. {{solution}} was the only thing I could find browsing WP:TM.--Sean|Black 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is part of an ongoing attack on the "secret" parts of numerous magic-trick articles by a host of vandals, called to arms on magic-related mailing-lists. Their particular unfavourite is King levitation (check out its history), and the creator of this template has already indicated his intention to use it on that article (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic). There has been considerable discussion on this matter by magic-interested Wikipedians, including an RfC at Talk:Out of This World (card trick). There's an overwhelming consensus that the secret information concerned should be retained. The fallacy that IP law prevents this disclosure has been explained at great length to the vandals at the above locations, and again at Talk:King levitation, but they don't seem to have any regard for facts. This template is antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with most of the above, the user who created this template isn't one of the vandals who've been blanking magic articles; see his contributions. I read this more as an attempt at a compromise. —Cryptic (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of Magicians. (With props to JRM for the line.) Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Smoke it. -- Jbamb 14:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. -- It's redundant, implies that wikipedia is doing something wrong (It's not, but if it were, then the text should be removed, not taged with this), and for all the other reasons mentioned above. Kenj0418 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and User:Kenj0418. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to suggest Make it vanish (to be cute), but I'm swayed by the compromise argument. Still, how does it help to be able to look things up but then not make use of them? Seems sort of like the Security Risk template, doesn't it? If it's OK to talk about these things here (but I am not sure WP needs to explain how magic tricks work does it?) then we should not require everyone that comes here to take a secrecy oath. It's unworkable anyway! SO... I dunno. I think the problem lies deeper than the template and answering whether WP should have trick mechanics is what to work on. ++Lar 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consumer magic industry should not recieve special protection. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But no tricks are "off limits for exposure". This is an encyclopedia, and if we talk about a trick, we would be remiss if we didn't explain how it works.--Sean|Black 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everything above. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Off-topic

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

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon reflection, I've changed my mind. Still a tad specific, but okay.--Sean|Black 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH ^(talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH ^(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH ^(talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

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

Question: Couldn't that new date field be integrated into template:NPOV? ~~(Without category thing, I don't think we need to categorize that by date)? Adrian Buehlmann 10:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep. Helps Jbamb doing his work. Let's let him try this and see how it flies. Adrian Buehlmann 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be yes, I created it and asked for comments on it. There are over 1400 NPOV disputes, sorting by date would be able to quickly isolate the real stale issues, and that certainly would be helpful for me since I'm cleaning them up. -- Jbamb 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- IF (big if) this is something that we want to do, it should be discussed on Template talk:POV and integrated without creating this fork. As such, there is no need for this template. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Been trying to discuss it several places, no one seemed interested in discussing the matter... Jbamb 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then let the idea die. -- Netoholic @ 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but discuss a merge at Template talk:POV. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

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

Delete per nom. -- Jbamb 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Kenj0418 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

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

Delete, never been used, and creating templates for every individual company defeats the purpose of having a template in the first place. - Bobet 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

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

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

Template:OS-icon-key

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

Template:If equal g

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

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

Comment — it's not a failed try, it's the mother of them all _→AzaToth 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ups. Sorry. Should have taken more care and doing my homework first before writing. Adrian Buehlmann 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per me _→AzaToth 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

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

December 29

Template:ROT13

Delete — Failed experiment to ROT13 old talk page archives. Was used on the Talk:Elvis Presley archives. cesarb 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everyone knows double ROT13 is more secure. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And I agree with Locke Cole; in-fact we should encrypt all of wikipedia with 2ROT13 and then use the DMCA to prohibit unauthorized decryption. Kenj0418 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
qryrgr, jung n fvyyl vqrn! -- grm_wnr Esc 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- V jbaqre, jvyy lbhe ibgr or pbhagrq yvxr guvf? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - bzt, vg'f abg n ibgr!!!1 -- grm_wnr Esc 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - This was cute the first time, but enough, please. While I'm sure there's a Firefox rot13 extension, it still leaves the rest of us scratching our heads. —Cryptic (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncategorized

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

delete self-defeating in other ways, too, since the editor - in the time taken to write {{Uncategorized}} - could just as easily add at least a general category to the article. In other words, this simply doubles the editorial work. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in September 2005 and kept. Nothing has changed since then, and the template has remained useful. Keep. Uncle G 06:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oddly enough I just used this today; when you're not sure where to categorize an article (but you know it needs a category), this is better than leaving the article as-is. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This unbreaks Special:Uncategorizedpages, which only displays the first thousand entries and is rarely updated, so doesn't show anything past the B's. Keep. —Cryptic (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seen it used alot, and also per Cryptic --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need this template, Special:Uncategorizedpages is redundant and not useful. - Darwinek 09:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I assume the nominater did not know that this template also places the pages it's used on in a special category for uncategorized pages, as such this template needs to stay.Deathawk 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: forgot to signe my name the last time, so I updated my edit to reflect that. Deathawk 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 2

Not used. Replacement: template:web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: It's really not used. At the present situation the compatible template:web reference can be used without breaking articles if somebody finds a leftover call of web reference 2 (I think I got them all converted to web reference). To Neto: you can act on template:web reference then at one strike. Or do you want to convert an old fork of web reference, too? Adrian Buehlmann 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates were made over a year ago. Uncle G 06:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We may need this because eventually the citation templates will have to stop using meta-templates. Multiple similar templates may have to be re-implemented as the solution. -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: kill it with a stick. A lot of work has gone into reducing the absurd number of forks of these reference templates: please do not let us revert back to the old situation (certain people want to deprecate the use of templates for references entirely: don't give them any leverage by making endless forks like there were before). —Phil | Talk 11:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 4

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

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

Template:Infobox University5

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

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

Template:Web-reference

Was a redirect to Template:Web reference. Deprecated and defunct. Adrian Buehlmann 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: the original creator wrote in the edit summary of the first revision "'ve mistyped this one too many times. Making the redirect, so I won't have to do it again.". Maintaining templates is already quite a hard job. Adding redirects for typos of heavy use templates is just a bad idea. Adrian Buehlmann 10:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Incomplete license

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

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

Template:Tuberculosis

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

Template:European communist parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like the images. It is not an unimportant matter, as the choice of symbolism also denotes political differences. Compare KPÖ/PCF with KKE, for example. Or note that some parties include national colours and other don't. BTW, aren't all communist parties Leninist by definition? --Soman 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: templates take up a lot of space on articles, and there's already either a politics or a "political parties in" template for most countries. When do we stop? That said, I think it's essentially a useful template. Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Jiang. There is no criterion for excluding the countless minor parties that are even considered fringe groups by even the members of the larger Communist parties, such as the anti-revisionsist Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, etc. Soman's comment is well taken; but note that the template name is "European communist parties," as opposed to a title that specifies that we are dealing with the historically Soviet-aligned parties (i.e. the ones listed in the template at the moment). 172 11:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Psychonaut - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality law

Template:User ai kago-5

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

Delete everything in the series and all associated categories. Usercruft. android 79 06:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is orphaned and unlikely to be used; note that I'm principally against deleting it just because it is usercruft. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two of them, specifically Ai Kago-4 and Ai Kago-5. Those two clearly crosses the line on appropriateness. Ai Kago-1 and Ai Kago-2 looks fine, Ai Kago-3 is a little disturbing and somewhat of a border case in my opinion, but hey, if that's what float's the person's boat. ;-) --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in series: unused, unlikely to be used (some things are even too esoteric for Wikipedia). But for the record, I'm not sure "appropriateness" is a proper standard for deleting userboxes. However, utility -- or at least the likelihood of being used -- is. If someone wants to express this opinion on their userpage, they can use the {{Userbox}} template without having to create a new template. -- Tetraminoe 06:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, this one is just too bad. Ian¹³_ID:540053 12:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually think these deltion proposals are becsue people are touchy, but this userbox is just.....wrong - Bourbons3^Talk 17:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer leniency on userboxes, and this one seems to be in good fun, but how many others explicitly state a desire to have sex with underaged people? I'd rather not start seeing Emma Watson userboxes, that's just edging up against the line of creepy. Night Gyr
Comment. I made this series of userboxes in fun, with my personal intention being that they could be changed on the user's userpage as the mood arose. Can we please userfy them instead of deletion? As for the age issue... not that I ever intended anything, but it'll be moot on February 7th, 2006 anyway as she'll be legal then ; --Cjmarsicano 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New comment. If you'll all excuse me for being bold, since I initially made these userboxes for myself and would hate for them to be bounced, I'm going to userfy them all. Happy new year. :) --Cjmarsicano 06:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Todo, trains

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

Delete now that it has been replaced with a generic todo template and the appropriate wikiproject notice. —Phil | Talk 10:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It uses Category:To do, trains so project members can quickly get to the associated todo lists. I think substituting another template in while this discussion is still ongoing is poor form; the changes should not have been made until this debate ended. Slambo (Speak) 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the category (wrapped in <noinclude> tags) to all of the todo subpages that were transcluded through this template, so the category argument is less relevant now. My vote is now abstain. Slambo (Speak) 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Slambo. We should not be overly eager to delete. Slambo said this is still in discussion so we should be kind and let that float for now. That group should discuss this first. Adrian Buehlmann 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)I finally groked that Phil already changed the calls to the generic to do. I see no point in reversing that work. Changing my vote to Delete. Adrian Buehlmann 09:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace. The category brings up a peculiar issue; while this is a template fork, which I would ordinarily vote to delete, the template can be moved to the WikiProject's subpages, which then preserves the desired functionality. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really bad practice to move a template into another namespace while still using transclusion. It's hard enough to maintain the Template: space. This function is just as usefull if you replace it with Template:Todo. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Slambo's description of usefulness and Titoxd's suggestion on how not to fork in mainspace but preserve usefulness. ++Lar 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to preserve functionality.--Lordkinbote 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIP

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

Strong Delete. No Wikipedia article is a "work in progress by one author", and nobody needs "permission to edit this page". Useless at best, fundamentally anti-Wiki at worst.--Sean|Black 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, instructions are blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from the one article it was attached to. Any objections to a speedy? This violates so many Wikipedia fundamentals that there's no chance it will be kept. android 79 01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, people can't own articles. {{inuse}} can be used if someone really needs to do a major edit. And having non-stub templates add pages to Category:Stubs hurts too. (I wouldn't be against a speedy, and since this has gotten 4 votes in 10 minutes on tfd, it looks like people really don't like it.) - Bobet 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Inuse. Very logical name for it. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cryptic. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered by inuse and incorrectly implies ownership.--SarekOfVulcan 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Template:Inuse already exists and appears to be better designed. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRL Grounds

Template:Freenet links

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

If a large number of pages (like more than ten) use this template then obviously there is a need for it and it shouldn't be deleted. If there is enough need to warrant keeping it, then I think the original article should be moved to a more appropriate space, as the AfD debate can be summed up as "I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something?"

I forget how to check template usage, but obviously if this template is deleted we lose some external links which will need to be removed or otherwise fixed. --TexasDex 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Template:Atlanta conventions

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

Delete it is also an orphan --Chris 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if no article uses the template, then does the template really exist? --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 09:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use - Bourbons3^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete lolling pin! - FrancisTyers 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see this has been deleted already, but wouldn't having a convient tag marking all of the good stuff have made it easier on the bad guys? I mean, why go searching for stuff when you can just go straight to everything marked Security Risk.

COMMENT

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Is that a legal threat I smell? We have nothing more to clarify to you, you are the one who is being deliberately vague and mysterious. --Golbez 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT There is nothing vague and mysterious about the clear security risk that posting photographs and addresses of diplomatic missions on this website poses. Supporters of known terrorist groups are permitted to freely edit, distribute and create materials here. The template itself was deleted before due process granted. I am suggesting that traffic emanating from and directed to this website be blocked from the servers of certain legal jurisdictions in order to prevent the further spread of misinformation as well as tools that may allow terrorists to create havoc.PeterZed 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to explain why it's a security risk to have the British Embassy's address on Wikipedia, when it's plainly visible on their webpage. Since you have not even bothered to answer this, which has been asked multiple times, I am forced to disregard you as a minor, but persistent, troll, someone who has absolutely no desire to assist international security and is just poking and prodding us for what I must assume to be your own amusement. --Golbez 23:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only think that letting this TFD finish would do is lower the percentage of votes in favor of it. Unless you got some of your "security proffesional" colleagues to come and vote. --Chris 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

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

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

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

Of course, I could have done better on the wording, but it could solve the problem with the template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it works, because this rewrite is now in the actual template, and the below votes indicate this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. --Chris 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it appears the objections have been met. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewritten version. -- Natalinasmpf 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the template goes no way to actaully providing information on the copyright of the image, and I tyhink will prevent people following up on the copyright of images that are not in the public domain. I would suggest including a field for the actual image page in the template.--nixie 04:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language/Malayalam

See below - identical template.

Template:MalayalamScript

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

Comment: Sukh emptied the category, changing all previous uses of {{MalayalamScript}} to {{IndicText}}. Thanks/wangi 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks?? The Malayalam template was presumably created after being vetted by the usual long process, now somebody summarily empties the category without so much as a by-your-leave?? I am speechless. ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Is what I previously said really unclear? Template creation requires a long vetting process. So does deletion. When the process is defined, and debate here is ongoing, why did you (Sukh) take it upon yourself to empty the category? ImpuMozhi 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being blind, but I certainly don't see the 'long vetting process' that this template went into. And I merely changed the existing four uses of the template BACK to the original Indic template. It is a wiki after all... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

My Answers

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