Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

This page is for deleting things in the Template namespace, which is used for reusable boilerplate messages and article series boxes. Deletion of these may be appropriate if the template:

• is not helpful or noteworthy;
• is redundant with categories, lists, or other mechanisms;
• or is simply unused.

For guidelines on acceptable boilerplate messages, see Wikipedia:Template namespace.
For guidelines on acceptable article series boxes, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

If you vote, please give a reason how it either does or does not fulfill these criteria. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement.
In addition to voting "Keep" or "Delete," a valid vote on this page is "Convert to category." In this case, all pages with the template should be added to an appropriately named category, and the template should be deleted.

Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates must be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.

Marking templates to be voted on: Insert the text {{tfd}} to the top of templates you list here. This adds the following message:

When adding this message to templates that are in the form of series boxes, the message should be placed inside the box, to make it clear what is being proposed for deletion. When being added to templates which have already been blanked, and are just sitting around as blanks, the message should be added to the template talk page. Again, do not blank templates to list them here - this is just if the template is already blank when you are listing it.

Templates that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised. Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log, and are located at /Log/Deleted and /Log/Not deleted.

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

April 9

Template:Czechia-geo-stub

Was marked {{db|replaced by the better Template:Czech-geo-stub}}. Not a speedy candidate, especially when it's not an orphan. One should be a redirect to the other; no opinion on which to which, though. —Korath (Talk) 16:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Starky 16:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 8

Template:TLA

The template basically informs the visitor that he looks at a TLA disambiguation page like MAA. I really think that he would also find this out without the existence of this template. :-) --Conti|✉ 15:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - seems the explanatory text doesn't add anything, and we have other mechanisms on the pages like Category:TLAs, Category:Lists of two-letter combinations. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

April 7

Template:Signpost

I should have just copied the code into my user space, not create an entire template. I request that this template that I have created be speedied. Once it was gone from my userspaces, it will be an orphan. Thank you. Zscout370 21:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I tagged it for speedy deletion, since you are its only editor. -- Netoholic @ 18:36, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I tried to speedied other things before that I have created and only used, but people left comments on my page to keep said pictures, articles, etc. Zscout370 18:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• GONE - in (less than) 60 seconds. Grutness|^hello? 01:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:*, Template:=

Is there any point to this? Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no point to these templates. Zscout370 18:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete? -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Delete: I believe not, my friend. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:2005Calendar through Template:2024Calendar

Also, Template:AprilCalendar2004 and Template:AprilCalendar2005, and Template:AprilCalendar2004Source through Template:AprilCalendar2025Source, and the same for every other month.

• Deprecated by generic calender templates for both months and years (dependent on the weekday of january 1st and leapness of the year). Well-intended, but unfortunately needless clutter. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - needless meta-templates. Have the alternate calendars been created yet, for comparison? -- Netoholic @ 15:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Note, Template:AprilCalendar2005 is still being in use. And they aren't necessarily meta-templates, at least for the ones I created from 2006 to 2025. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Netoholic, please really take a look. Template:MayCalendar2006Source is not a meta-template in any way. It's actual template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Templates for "Leap year starting on tuesday" or "30-day month starting on friday" (with parametrization for which month and year it is) have the advantage of being reusable for each and every year in the Gregorian calendar, obviating the need for hundreds of templates for each individual month and year therein. Radiant_* 09:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Numbers (360s)

Also, Template:Numbers 1 E9 - 1 E10, Template:Numbers 46660s, Template:Numbers (3 E2), Template:Numbers 1 E9 - 1 E10, Template:Numbers 7740s, Template:Numbers E0, Template:Numbers 200-300, Template:Numbers E1

• All of these are not in actual use, and deprecated by other more general number templates. Radiant_* 09:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Whydelete

Barely in use, but more importantly this doesn't seem like a very useful application for templates. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Hrm. I'm certain I've seen this wording before, and not on any of the talk pages where it's currently instanced. Standard practice might well be to subst it in, since leaving it as a template might be seen as an affront to the user. —Korath (Talk) 10:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Template:New TFD

(and redirect at Template:TFDNotice)

TFD does not make use of this template. It's not common practice to make sections for "keep", "delete" votes. -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

• Nor should it be. Whenever someone "helpfully" refactors a vfd like this, it stops being a discussion and starts turning into a shouting match. There's no reason to suspect things would be any different here. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 07:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I like this (the basic idea, at least). It organises the reasons for and against (and their accompanying votes — but as has been stressed continually, it shouldn't be, and in theory it's not, about the votes) into clear sections. These discussions can turn into shouting matches anyway; I'm not sure why this would accelerate the process. Unlike the Tally Box, it doesn't focus on votes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Korath. Like the Tally Box Pox. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same ambiguity issues here as with tally boxes. -Sean Curtin 22:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletedpage

Unused. In the rare event that a deleted page needs to be protected against re-creation vandalism, MediaWiki:Noarticletext is used, or the article left blank. —Korath (Talk) 05:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The use of MediaWiki:Noarticletext makes this template obsolete. Zzyzx11 05:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and rewrite. I dislike using MediaWiki:Noarticletext as it is confusing to fellow good faith editors. -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Given the rareness of pages being locked as empty, and the apparent lengthy discussions that have preceded them, I'd prefer them blank. The text of this template is equally (mildly) confusing, btw imho. Delete. Radiant_* 11:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

April 6

Template:Deletetranswikied

This speedy-deletion-notice template was recently created by User:Sirkumsize [1]. However, its very existence is a bit problematic and contradictory, because the mere fact that a page has been transwikied is not explicitly one of the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact, an article being a dicdef stub was explicitly voted down in voting a few months ago to expand the speedy-deletion criteria. Many topics that have simple one-line dictionary definitions could also be the subjects of long encyclopedia articles (such as "astronomy", or many others). So it does not follow from the mere fact that a Wiktionary page has been created that the corresponding Wikipedia page should be deleted.

Recently a bot has been automatically applying this speedy deletion notice to articles (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bot_.5B.5BUser:KevinBot.5D.5D) Recently this notice has been applied to articles that are much more than mere dicdefs (Fag hag) and articles with encyclopedic potential that books have been written about (Affluenza). In some cases, admins have actually acted on these speedy deletion notices for cases that are debatable and best left for VfD (such as Virility, which I restored).

However, the fundamental problem is that this template places a speedy deletion notice that cites a reason that is not one of the speedy deletion criteria, and so every single use of this template is, well, basically not valid. -- Curps 02:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - transwikied pages must go through VfD, unless, by themselves, they fit the WP:CSD. We shold block whatever bot is doing this. -- Netoholic @ 03:04, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with above. User:KevinBot is placing the tags, but you probably don't need to block it, just talk to its owner User:Kevin Rector. Kappa 07:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and reword. It is useful to state that an article has been transwiki'd. Of course transwikefaction is no grounds for speedy deletion, but a transwiki'd article should be marked as such to prevent people from tagging it for transwiki again, or from voting transwiki on a VfD. Radiant_* 13:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's what Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary is for. —Korath (Talk) 14:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually there's a whole load of mechanism that Kevin Rector and I have independently had to invent for this, including the various templates listed at Category:transwikied to Wiktionary and Category:moved to Wiktionary. The end of the transwikification process is a mess. (As I've pointed out before, the transwikification and deletion processes as they stand actually form a loop.) We've had to make up much of this as we went along. Uncle G 15:35, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete -- transwikied pages are not automatic speedy deletion candidates. Rls 00:07, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Template:CFUPTYSYSTTD

Should be moved to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --Ellmist 20:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• So are you asking for deletion, or do you need help finding out how to move the template yourself? -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • No need to be short with him. Since BJAODN is not composed of subpages, and a redirect would be silly, listing for deletion is appropriate.
• Delete. Snowspinner 23:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I have copied it there. Now delete. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 5

Template:Tfd

This template sees a great deal of use, and it cannot be abandoned without a replacement, which I have thoughtfully provided.

(After some thought, I'm no longer convinced a replacement is needed; I now favor direct notification over possibly hostile tagging of any kind. But {{ttfd}} is there. — Xiongtalk 09:40, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC))

{tfd} suffers from two problems -- one a mere matter of style, the other a severe functional liability.

I shall take the first point first.

The text of the template reads,

This states quite clearly that the matter under consideration (here, on this page) is text. However, templates contain things other than visible text. No few templates include code, as well, which produces effects visible and invisible. Thus, any reader who stumbles upon a {tfd} tag may be misled -- perhaps it is not the text at all which has been so generated, but the colored box which encloses it. Or perhaps the template under consideration does nothing except force categorization, or fulfill some other obscure purpose. If nominated for deletion -- and tagged in this fashion -- every instance of the disputed template results in the reader's attention being misdirected to the proposed deletion of the following matter. This might be the edit and page links!

I shall pass lightly over the clumsy wording and unattractive box, which is either too obtrusive or insufficiently so.

The second point is much more grave. Templates indeed contain much more than text; they contain code, instructions to the engine. And it is not inconceivable that one template be included in another. The interactions among these several snippets of code may be complex and unpredictable under the best of circumstances; adding another bit of stuff to an existing template may cause all manner of difficulty. Some users may not be able to foresee all the possibilities.

To illustrate this point, I insert for you here the entire content of the existing {tfd} tag, just as the parser sees it, warts and all:

Now I know, those of us with some skill in technical matters glory in this, but as a systems man, I would rather not have a naive user, doing his honest job of policing up the deadwood, open that in his browser and attempt to stuff anything into it. It's no use to say that if he messes it up, Somebody will come along later and fix it. By that time, dozens, perhaps hundreds of pages will have called the disputed template, page renderings may or may not have stalled, the cache will be stuffed, and everybody's Wikistress redlined.

At the very least, inserting {tfd} into a template immediately creates a so-called meta-template, a template which calls another. As Netoholic has so vigorously pointed out at Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, multiple levels of indirection load the engine. It is ironic that a template nominated for deletion on grounds of being an unnecessary and excessive load on the engine must become a greater problem because an additional level of indirection has been added to it with the {tfd} tag itself.

To sum up, {tfd}, a holdover from earlier times, must in its turn go. Its appearance is sophomoric, its message confused, its construction dubious, its actual effects abhorrent even to those who use it most frequently. The process of TfD must continue, of course, as before -- but the tag must be retired.

I have constructed a template more suitable for our purpose: {{ttfd}}. You will see that its text is worded with greater neutrality, permitting more flexibility in application. The enclosing box is unashamed -- perhaps overbold, but a wiser head than I may change the box color code. Best of all, it is designed specifically to be placed on the Talk pages of disputed templates -- thus the additional "T". On Talk, it can do no harm if malformed or vandalized; it is called only when needful and does not disrupt a range of pages. Of course, it has already been tagged for deletion, but since it has been so tagged on its Talk page, that does not wreck it for use in anticipation of your eventual decision.

At this point, the poker players among us have come to wonder whether, in a supreme fit of disrupting the project to make a point, I have followed procedure and tagged {tfd} with {tfd}, triggering infinite recursion and freefall into a bottomless hall of mirrors; the skittish ones eye the emergency exits. Never fear. I am not driven by technicality right over the brink of the abyss. The self-destruct button has not been pushed.

But this nomination is entirely sincere and in deadly earnest. I have tagged {tfd}'s Talk page with both {tfd} and {{ttfd}}; and I assert it correct to do so.

• Absurd. Keep. I'll be more specific if someone convinces me you're not trolling. —Korath (Talk) 11:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - For fucks sake... I'd remove this listing altogether except I want people to see this. Xiong is becoming increasingly odd, creating random templates, calling for crusades against what he sees as "evil", aggressive edits, and direct personal attacks. Anyone want to co-sign an RFC? -- Netoholic @ 15:55, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

1. Disruptive use of a template
2. -Attempt to correct use of template; rational justification given
3. Resistance to correction; argument ad hominem
4. -Attempt to improve template; rational justification
5. Resistance to improvement; argument ad hominem
6. -Nomination for template deletion; rational justification
7. Lies and vituperation

Ah, well. Someone has gone and tagged {{ttfd}} right on the template itself; take a look. Apparently, the principle of tagging nominated templates directly is inflexible. No amount of common sense may be permitted to intervene. Well. I shall not dare to quarrel with the will of the majority.

Now, like it or not, {tfd} has been nominated for deletion, and on several excellent grounds, too. Therefore, it must be tagged. In truth, placing a {tfd} tag on {tfd} will not cause the Florida Gulf Coast to erupt in gouts of molten metal; I only forbore to do so because that seemed "absurd". I apologize for my deviation from accepted procedure. — Xiongtalk 17:05, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. →Vik Reykja 17:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would you create an alternate tfd template? Simply propose changes on Template talk:tfd. Rhobite 05:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT --Carnildo 06:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As per Rhobite and Carnildo. Keep. Uncle G 11:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Oh dear lordy. Sure, the tfd notice needs some work, but deleting it and replacing it is overkill. Keep and modify if necessary - which, as Rhobite pointed out, should be done on Template talk:tfd, not here. Grutness|^hello? 02:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but this nomination may be BJAODN worthy :) -Frazzydee|✍ 03:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't BJAODN it. The nominator took it quite seriously, and seems to have left Wikipedia over the issue; see the template's recent history and some of the fallout on my talk page. —Korath (Talk) 05:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Proposal to delete is utterly stupid. I believe Xiong is becoming deliberately disruptive. -- FP 06:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ttfd

Purely disruptive. Creator made this after this layout was reverted on Template:tfd. -- Netoholic @ 15:55, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Please; will you substantiate "disruptive"? Explain in what manner the existence or prescribed use of this template disrupts the project. Does it interfere with the proper display or function of some other template? Does it impair anyone's ability to perform any task? Does it provoke anyone to intemperate acts? I request a direct answer from the gentleman.

Meantime, my vote on the issue here at hand: Move template to Template:Tfd, then delete as redundant. Also, Someone should fix annoyingly chosen color for box. — Xiongtalk 17:26, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Inferior wording; gigantic and ugly; uses multiple layers of metatemplates (was fixed); unsuitable for use in the prescribed manner (on the template itself). Delete. —Korath (Talk) 18:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I can see we require a comparison for effective debate. I shall provide one. I do suggest that any user who sees a way to improve {{ttfd}} do so; it's perfectly acceptable to edit boldly.

Template:Ttfd:

Template:Ttfd

Template:Tfd:

Please note that the usage prescribed for {{ttfd}} is placement on Talk pages by default. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 22:33, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I've removed this "comparison" We can all click links and see what they look like. We don't need this, since it fouls up what is supposed to be a simple vote thread. -- Netoholic @ 23:19, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Delete. I do not think that the code-into-code example applies in this case, which is the main reason stated for this template's existence. My understanding is that template functionality is influenced by parameterized text but not additional text, with non-parameter information either being ignored or presented as nowiki text; in other words, the nested template functionality is specifically disabled by the function-rendering engine. If I'm wrong about this admitted speculation (i.e. if this is self-delusion), then I'd appreciate being corrected with an explanation in this discussion thread. Courtland 00:08, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

I have restored the side-by-side comparison, which can not be seen by an ordinary user merely by flipping back-and-forth between two browser windows. The side-by-side comparison is my choice of comment upon this Talk page. To remove it from view is to strangle my ability to express myself -- to express myself in neutral language, for I did not give preference of any kind to one over the other, nor attach nasty words to either. There is extremely dense precedent for freedom of expression outside of speech and textual writing (and in any case, if you wish to be pedantic, my expression was in the form of text, but let us pass lightly over that). Since the largest difference between these two templates is visual, my visual expression is even more clearly appropriate and protected by all policy and convention from interference.

The comparison does not "foul up" the debate. You are free to express yourself at any length, right here. Wikipedia is not paper, and we will not hit the bottom of the page no matter what we do. Nor have I chosen to display my comment in such a way as to obscure anyone else's. Continue to debate in whatever style you feel appropriate. Every word and every example will be visible not only to other users who come to review the debate, but to all the generations of Wikipedians who follow.

Please, before you decide to silence me or mangle my expression, distort my comments, or steer debate by whacking out your opponents, please ask yourself: How far down that road do you wish to take us? Thank you. — Xiongtalk 05:08, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• Delete. Did I mention I'm confused by why exactly this template is needed? Rhobite 05:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicates Template:tfd. --Carnildo 06:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reply first to Rhobite. {{ttfd}} is needed because {tfd} has been nominated for deletion, and once that is gone, we will need some method of tagging nominated templates. It is not enough simply to suggest that {tfd} be placed on nominated templates' Talk pages; first, because the wording is incorrect; second, because I have tried that solution and a certain gentleman has instantly reverted this reasonable refinement of procedure -- all the more baffling, since he once attempted the same reasonable refinement.

The exact purpose of {{ttfd}} is documented on its own Talk page. I realize templates have had poor documentation in the past, so users are not accustomed to seek it; but I am hoping to start a trend. From Template talk:Ttfd#Purpose:

Templates are not merely words strung together to say something; they are code which the engine interprets. It is dangerous to insert random code into other code; you cannot be sure of the effects. It is safer to tag Templates with {{ttfd}} on their Talk pages, where there is no risk of unintended chain-reactions of side effects. (emphasis added).

I now reply to Carnildo. It did seem to me at first that the ideal solution to the malformed {tfd} text was to improve it directly. If you take a peek at [2], you'll see I attempted that very solution. Having repaired {tfd}, of course, I thought this matter at an end -- or, more precisely, that others would come along and build on this to further improve it, and the immediate crisis be ended.

But a certain gentleman instantly reverted this solution to the previous version, without attempting to improve it. Thus, as it appears impossible to improve {tfd}, it must go; and with it gone, {ttfd} duplicates nothing, but is our remaining tool.

I now take note of an action relevant to this debate involving {tfd} and {ttfd} by one who has yet to participate directly. Violetriga removed the {tfd} tag from Template:Tfd, in the face of caution not to do so, with this edit summary:

revert - the correct procedure is to insert {{tfd}} not this - a trivial detail but does serve as grounds to fix the mess

(Please note I have enclosed the inclusion of the tag in nowiki tags, lest we all become hopelessly confused. Let us thank all the gods that the engine does not expand templates within edit summaries.)

By "revert", it seems the good user has edited the template to a state in which it is displayed without any tag at all.

To be honest, I am confounded. If it is the correct procedure to insert the tag, why did she not do so?

When I put the tag in myself, I thought to avoid possible server meltdown by inserting it via the subst: atom -- an alternative that should be considered whenever a template of any kind is used. That was rash enough -- perhaps I pushed the wrong button, but that action of mine inserted two copies of {tfd} within the template body, in addition to the one already there. When a careless user removed the prescribed {tfd} tag from the doomed Template:Tfd, I gently cautioned against such contrary-to-established-procedure action and restored the missing, required tag content safely, by instancing the template elsewhere and pasting the resulting code directly into the template body. This resulted, correctly, for each instance of use of the tag, in exactly two identical copies being written of the original {tfd} code and message: the upper copy giving required (albeit confusing) notice to all users that the template "below" has been nominated for deletion; the lower copy giving required (though shortly to be deprecated, perhaps) notice to all users that whatever poor template it is affixed to has been so nominated.

Did everybody follow that? I could explain it again in other language, but it might be best to read it over once or twice. Please forgive me if I sound condescending; it is extremely confusing to me, and I must read it over four or five times to be sure I've got it absolutely straight.

So, the last user to touch the template has insisted on the necessity of including the tag itself within the template body. I don't honestly believe that Florida will slide into the Gulf of Mexico if this is done -- I'm sure there is adequate protection -- but I am not sure what will happen. But there seems to be no room at all for a commonsense approach to this matter. We have a procedure, and procedures are meant to be obeyed. Templates nominated for deletion must be tagged with {{tfd}}, within the nominated template's body. Template:Tfd has been so nominated, thus it must be so tagged.

I confess I am something of a gambling man; though too poor to play with high rollers, I often make private bets with myself. I wager that the engine will deal with this situation by refusing to display the self-included template at all; nothing will appear in its place. I have not cheated, either by direct experiment in a corner of the Great Sandbox or by peeking at the documentation; so it is a fair bet. I will confess my error, follow established and inviolable procedure, see what happens, turn out the lights and go to bed. After work tomorrow, I will browse on over to CNN and see if Florida is still there. I am happy to say that, as I live in California, I hope to suffer no personal ill effects in the all-too-possible event that I am wrong. — Xiongtalk 08:47, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• As per Rhobite and Carnildo in the discussion of Template:tfd. Delete. Uncle G 11:25, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely no need for it. -- FP 06:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

April 4

Template:Numberlist and Template:Disamb2

More useless templates created by User:SamuraiClinton. --SPUI (talk) 00:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Numberlist

• Delete. This would be an OK template by me if there were not already a variety of Cleanup Templates. The activity that {{Numberlist}} falls under would seem to be copy-editing, and that's already dealt with by {{Cleanup-copyedit}} which would be put on the Talk page and followed with details as to the type of copyedits required. Courtland 02:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Disamb2

• Keep. This falls under the same general category as templates like {{moveto}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{split}} and provides a useable boilerplate opinion statement. Courtland 02:40, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Template:VfDis

Useless template in conjunction with Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation. --SPUI (talk) 00:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should be handled in Talk: or maybe RFC. See also m:Instruction creep, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for disambiguation. —Korath (Talk) 00:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Overall, I think this is redundant with existing mechanisms and adds a layer of process that is not necessary. It's not a bad idea to get a consensus for moving from a set of introductory see-also's to a full blown disambiguation page, but that's really a content editing matter and I do not think a matter of policy (though the content of a disambiguation page is a policy matter). If there is a question about moving a page from XXXYYYZZZ to XXXYYYZZZ (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Requested_moves is there for use in garnering a consensus. Courtland 00:51, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Template:Potc

A template for, at best, articles on three movies, two of which haven't been released yet, and one of those is likely to be deleted or redirected. There's already a Category:Pirates of the Caribbean. This template simply serves no purpose. Postdlf 00:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Silly. RickK 23:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Category duplication. It's silly to have a template for this. Firebug 09:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the intent of this navigational template. Consider the templates for book series at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Entertainment_and_fiction_2. Articles exist for all the links on this template, something which should be a universal requirement but apparently is not. The Template is not necessarily limited to members of the movie series but also to spin-off items as well (books, for instance). Finally, I don't like to see it existing, frankly, but just because the content is not to my liking is no reason for it to be banished from Wikipedia. Courtland 00:34, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete, too small a group to need a navigational template. -Sean Curtin 22:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Add

Obsoleted before it was created by the convenient [+] tab (or "Post a comment" link) at the top of each talk page. Poor use of a template, since one would not anticipate the URL syntax ever changing and the impact is minimal if it ever did. -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

• Keep. This template is indeed redundant on talk pages, but pages in the Wikipedia namespace lack the [+] tab, but many of them have comments added at he end. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought that too, but in fact, Wikipedia: pages have "See also", category, and interwiki links at the bottom. This would add a new section below those, which goes against standard formatting. I could find no page where this "add section" is useful. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
    • I edited one earlier today, in fact: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Troll. Anyway, if such a link was needed, it would be added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence without requiring this template. I again point out that URL syntax doesn't change. -- Netoholic @ 17:03, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• I do not see this handy [+] tab anywhere on any page in my browser. Can anyone tell me how to get it? — Xiongtalk 09:15, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • In the Monobook skin, it's between the "edit this page" and "history" tabs. In Classic, it's on the quickbar under "Edit this page". In Cologne Blue, it's in the quickbar in the "This page" section. In the Nostalgia skin, you get it by switching to a different skin. —Korath (Talk) 09:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This has no business on article pages and we already have the same functionality on talk pages. →Vik Reykja 17:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep there is no [+] on Wikipedia project pages. Grue 17:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like you should make a bugzilla: request for this enhancement. Even it that function is needed, we'd still never want to use a template for that. -- Netoholic @ 23:23, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the underlying reasoning for the creation of the template, but not with it being implemented as a template. In the case of very long pages that are not already sectionized, this is a stylistic and significant problem but one that should be dealt with in another manner. In the case of very long (or any) page that is already sectionized, addition of a section is already easily accomplished by opening an existing section and adding text to either the top or bottom of the edit box, depending on the desired position of the new section in the article. Courtland 00:17, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Template:Doctl

Pure laziness and extremely poor use of a template. This is apparently only created to facilitate creating documentation on the use of other templates. I think Wikipedia has gotten along fine without this for this long. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

• Oh, I think documenting code is a fine thing to do, and documenting code in a consistent format, so others can come along and work with it, finer still. But this template is broken and does not serve its intended purpose. (Please see Template talk:Doctl). Can anyone fix it? Thank you. — Xiongtalk 09:20, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Keep. The talk page advocates using subst: on it. I don't think the template is entirely necessary, but I don't have a problem keeping it around. →Vik Reykja 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Documentation of templates might well help to forestall unnecessary calls for deletion, or provide context for consideration of alterations to templates as circumstances and Wikipedia content changes. Courtland 23:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

April 3

Template:Current U.S. Senators

Disucssion and vote moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Current U.S. Senators --DuKot 21:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) Moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Current U.S. Senators Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-importance

Attempt at making policy by fait accompli - reference to proposed policy Wikipedia:Importance, which is extremely contentious (see its talk). I could put around all manner of templates to give people the impression an extremely contentious proposed policy that is nowhere near passing is in fact policy, but that would of course be a WP:POINT-scorer. So for now I'll nominate this one as an extremely bad idea - David Gerard 09:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Variations on this theme: Template:Unencyclopedic, Template:Explain significance. —Korath (Talk) 10:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, Template:Unencyclopedic is slightly different. Several editors draw a distinction between "non-notable" and "non-encylopaedic". Uncle G 19:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Keep. Template aids cleanup of articles that don't convey why the subject matter is notable. This is a useful pre-VfD step that reduces the workload of the VfD page in cases of newbie contributions RC-patrollers deem as borderline notable. Notability IS a deletion criteria, like it or not. Edit the template to remove the link to Wikipedia:Importance, if that bothers you. jni 12:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's a "shot across the bows" warning that works in practice, and that is less drastic than the direct application of a VFD notice to a new article. Claims about setting policy are spurious. The template is descriptive. Keep. Uncle G 14:26, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • comment: When I want to take a shot across the bow at an article I address the authors through the Talk page of the article and/or specific authors who have been responsible for much of the content. Slapping a scarlet I (for Insignificant) on an article seems to be edging toward not acting in good faith, toward using public humiliation as a tool for content betterment. Not my idea of a good trend, frankly. Courtland 02:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
    • That's a complete mischaracterisation of the template. The template has nothing to do with humiliation, nor could it have if it tried. Furthermore, the notice points to the talk page of the article. Uncle G 19:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves as a warning to newbies that their newly created article may be considered for deletion because notability is questioned. Zzyzx11 16:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the link to Wikipedia:Importance is the problem, then this template should be deprecated in favor of either Template:Unencyclopedic or Template:Explain significance. Zzyzx11 17:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not necessary, since Template:vfd is available. But this may be a useful half-step for editors who do not believe in deleting on sight. --Henrygb 16:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I see this as a more harshly worded version of {{explain significance}}, a version in fact that passes judgement on the article presumabley as a way to accelerate the VfD process (I say this as it would seem that no response to this template message by authors could be construed as tacit agreement that the article should be deleted, a tactic that will no doubt be employed if the template is retained). I think that usage of the "explain significance" template in conjunction with the VfD process ... in its current and future forms ... is sufficient. Courtland 02:47, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Talking about how the template "will be employed" is to ignore the fact that this template has been in employment for months. You are mischaracterising this as something that has only just been invented and deployed. And the implied idea that "passing judgement" is bad is just ludicrious. Every cleanup-xxxx template involves passing judgement. As for presuming that this is a way to accelerate the VFD process, it should have been clear from what Henrygb said that completely the opposite is true and that this template is geared towards decelerating the VFD process. Uncle G 19:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Delete. per Courtland. BlankVerse ∅ 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. -Sean Curtin 22:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep or redirect to {{explain significance}}. I found this template useful, but I agree it's redundant. --cesarb 20:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Partmerge

Another creation by SamuraiClinton that is redundant to Template:Merge and Template:Mergefrom. Zzyzx11 18:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Unnecessary. Delete Uncle G 11:33, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Some coordinate templates: Template:Coordinate dms, Template:Coor d NW, Template:Coor d NE, Template:Coor d SE, Template:Coor d SW

The above five are all obsoleted by the Template:coor d et al some time ago. All usage has been changed to the newer template, so none of these are in use. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. -- Egil 19:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even the obvious ones deserve at least one vote. Gene Nygaard 13:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, indeed :-). James F. (talk) 18:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 29

Template:Education-wikify

I can't see any reason why wikify tags need to be subject specific. Such a thing makes sense for stubs, where expanding them may require specialized knowledge, but wikifying is a relatively straightforward process. I think Template:Wikify is just fine, and a proliferation of sub-templates would be confusing and lead to instruction creep. CDC (talk) 00:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd been vaguely wondering about this myself. See also: Template:Biology-wikify, Template:Comp-wikify, Template:Geo-wikify, Template:History-wikify, Template:Music-wikify, Template:Office-wikify, Template:Org-wikify, Template:People-wikify, Template:Pol-wikify, Template:Pop-wikify, Template:Sports-wikify. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would support keeping this if it appeared to be part of either a Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Education or one of the existing projects in the education category. Even if that were true, though, I think it would need rewording. No, I think that User:Woohookitty who created this was acting in good faith, believing that education-related articles needed special treatment. Courtland 01:33, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I'm absolutely sure the creator of these templates was acting in good faith; I mean nothing personal, and I appreciate their efforts. I just don't think they're a good idea, and I thought I'd see what other folks think. Regarding the others Korath mentions above, maybe they all should go if the consensus is that the one I posted (as an example, I suppose) does too? CDC (talk) 05:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. I could actually see templates like this being useful iff they were associated with specific WikiProjects which would make them much more likely to be wikified than if the articles were just left in the larger Category: Articles that need to be wikified (with 5-600 articles). If this and the other topic wikify templates are kept, they should also only be put on the article's Talk page. Of course most of these unwikified articles are also stubs, so a better way of doing the categorization is to use the existing topic stubs along with the wikify template. BlankVerse ∅ 08:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I created most (but not all) of these. The idea was to keep the wikify page less cluttered. The catagorization is keeping the wikify page from becoming a 4 page entry. That was my point of doing this. I'm not sure what the difference is between this and all of the cleanup tags, i.e. cleanup-context, etc. Also, if we move these to the talk page, then we would need to move all of the wikify tags over to the talk page soon. If you want tackle that, go right ahead. :-) One is simply a child of the other.--Woohookitty 17:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 27

Template:Senior citizen

(and MediaWiki:Senior citizen)

Links to a total of 6 articles on Vfd, and (according to what I think is most likely)]] only the last 2 of these will probably survive Vfd as articles of their own and this probably means the template itself should be deleted. Georgia guy 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I abstain until the relevant VfD discussions are complete. Zzyzx11 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. After the deletion has run its course, I have reworked it to reference five currently existing articles. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- pseudo-category. — Xiong (talk) 10:06, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Keep. Why do these people from other fields continue to launch assaults on the work of others? If they think their job is to destroy knowledge...the Mongols did a lot more than they ever will. Ryoung122 19:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - pretty bad series box with a bad name. -- Netoholic @ 01:50, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

March 25

Template:Manga

Category scheme in a box. Very pretty, but it doesn't even have any content specifically related to any given article that it's put on. Snowspinner 05:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete

• It does not follow the policy for navigational templates because it is more like a combination of TOC templates for the following: List of manga, Mangaka, and Manga. Secondly, the links for List of manga and List of Manga-ka are in alphabetical order, thus making it redundant to categories. Zzyzx11 06:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It's big, awkward, redundant, and not useful. (It was worse when it was vertical.) I agree with mako's albumbox-ish proposal, though. -℘yrop (talk) 07:10, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Large and hideous; convert to category. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I've never bothered to click on any of the links, and i doubt many other will. Right now this template is just a deposite of links, no real content. If you were to expand this template, it will take up more space than the contents on many wiki entries on manga/anime. DELETE after there's something better as an replacement. LG-犬夜叉 23:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Useless. Ashibaka (tock) 00:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant category. Convert and delete - David Gerard 00:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Either a category or a TOC. Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Keep

• This template has been around for a while. It used to be a vertical box that occupied a sidebar position, like this. I modified the box to be horizontal a few months back, envisioning placement at the bottom of the page, as suggested on Template_talk:Manga. However the change would require going through every page referencing this template and moving the tag to the bottom, so I did not go through with the change, instead leaving the template on the talk page for comment. User:Minghong decided to implement it yesterday. This is an arduous task, as he has discovered (read the talk if you haven't already). I suspect the user who posted this to vfd viewed a yet unfixed page, which would indeed be aesthetically jarring. However, at the bottom of the page, where it belongs, it serves a navigational purpose. Keep. - mako 06:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • After some thought, I've changed my mind. The template is indeed redundant. What we really need is an infobox, like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums, that covers anime and manga. It would link to all the appropriate lists and serve an informational purpose. The proper place to do this is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga. (To those of you wondering about the change from vertical to horizontal: most of the larger nav boxes I've seen occupy the bottom position on the page. I chose not to make the change myself partly because I was waiting for commentary...) - mako 07:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You may find Template:Infobox Software, Template:Infobox Company and Template:Infobox Movie useful. --minghong 11:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other

• I don't know... It might be sufficient to link to the various lists in this template on the articles that use this template, but it is a convenient method of navigation if you want to find another manga series. Josh 05:41, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I prefer to use "List of XXX" to do this kind of thing, i.e. List of manga. This navigation bar, while being improved, is just quite large in size. And many manga are also anime and/or game. So in order to make it complete, we need to create "anime" and "game" navbar as well? The article will be overloaded... P.S. Oh yes, I'm the one who make the change from vertical to horizontal. --minghong 07:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I would rather see it a bit smaller than having it removed altogether. Philip Nilsson 22:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, an infobox would be much better. As the articles are now it can take up to 10 seconds to find a single piece of information if it is not written in a standard way in the first paragraph. I do suggest that we keep it until we have something to replace it with though.
• I don't understand why the design of this box was changed from that vertical version to an horizontal one. To me, it looks pretty bad the way it is now, while it looked just fine the way it used to be. That's why I vote for it to be reverted to the vertical-oriented style.--Kaonashi 07:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I liked it better when it was vertical, too. It certainly took up less space. —Korath (Talk) 02:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Refactor -- This clearly fulfills the role of a category more than of a template. I certainly don't support its inclusion on every such page. On the other hand, I think it's well done. It does something I don't think a standard category page does well. Horizontal box is "clean" -- formats properly in extremely narrow window. I say, keep it for now, and figure out how to upgrade a category page to that standard; then replace. Major project; kick it off this page and look at it in a month or two. — Xiong (talk) 10:04, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

March 20

Template:VfD-Königsburg

This does not seem to be a template at all, but a discussion of a tfd of some other template. It has few incoming links and serves no purpose. — Xiong (talk) 02:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — no opposition to deletion

Comment: It is the discussion from a VfD for the Königsburg article. This is part of a large number of pages from Wikipedia's ancient history when VfD votes were kept in the Template name space (for more examples, see Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace). All of there should probably be moved to match current VfD practices after some sort of consensus vote covering all of them, but they should not be voted on one at a time here. BlankVerse ∅ 09:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Precisely... that is a project in itself. -- Netoholic @ 07:01, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Comment & Action. Though you (BlankVerse and Netoholic) are right about dealing with them en masse, the present case should be resolved in a one-off to clear this page and some note added to the TfD process for future contingencies. I've added a link to the VfD page to Talk:Kaliningrad to try and satisfy part of the VfD process. The {{VfD-Königsburg}} template had already been orphaned except for non-Main space links. Courtland 17:50, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

March 15

Template:Reqimg

This template tries to make a general need specific. Many pages need images; these are, almost universally, the ones that have few images. Readers like to look at pictures, even avid bookworms. Even gratuitous graphics help to relieve the eye and are not superfluous.

No template is required on pages that contain insufficient images; the lack of images is immediately and glaringly obvious to all editors with any skill in graphics arts or any inclination to add such images. It is redundant and distracting to call attention to any one individual article by means of this template.

I have marked this template for deletion. — Xiong (talk) 07:22, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

see also related Template:Picneed above and Template:Noimgyet below

Summary after 2 weeks — no consensus reached (<2:1 for deletion)

• 7 Delete: BlankVerse; iMB~Mw; older!=wiser; Sean Curtin (1); Louisthebest_007; Burgundavia; Uncle G
• 2 Keep: msh210; Courtland
• 2 Keep & Redirect: Netoholic; Sean Curtin (2)

• delete (redirect iff kept). There should only be one template for pages listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. The most commonly used one is Template:Reqimage (which also has the most appropriate name as well). Even that template should be rewritten it so that it is designed to go on the article's talk page instead of the article's main page, and then all the current uses of the template should be moved to talk pages. BlankVerse ∅ 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• For the same reasons given to delete the accompanying Category:Articles that need pictures (namely, it's painfully redundant), this template should go away. --iMb~Mw 07:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (except as outlined below). There are two reasons listed above for deleting: (1) it's obvious which articles need pictures, so no template is necessary (Xiong, iMeowbot); (2) a template is necessary, but only one, and we already have {{reqimage}} (BlankVerse). (1) As to reason 1, I agree, but I think that this discussion should be about {{reqimage}} also; as long as {{reqimage}} isn't listed here, I'm voting "keep" on {{reqimg}}. (For that matter, the stub templates would also belong on tfd by the logic of reason 1.) (2) I absolutely disagree with reason 2, though: (a) There's nothing wrong with two templates; what does it hurt? And (b) this one serves a different purpose from {{reqimage}}, as is obvious from reading their text. —msh210 14:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I did not say it's obvious what articles need pictures. The redundancy is with WP:RP. — user:IMeowbot 23 Mar 2005
    • Sorry for the misunderstanding. —msh210 15:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete. The template is broken as is. And redundant even if it did work. older≠wiser 01:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - There no real need for almost identical templates like this. {{reqimage}} was perfectly fine to begin with. Louisisthebest_007 19:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Modify. I've voted Delete for {{picneed}} above. My feeling is that a general "need picture" message is not the best application of this template. I think it should be modified to work something like the {{deletebecause}} template that provides the ability ... necessitates really ... the addition of a reason. In the case of the modified {{reqimg}} the necessitated addition would be a statement of what picture is needed. I think this is very important for two reasons. First, it allows people to judge at first glance whether they can provide such an image or not. Second, the need for images is not universally accepted, but among those believing they are needed, the "right" text-to-image weight has no consensus and neither has the type of article needing images; for example, Sledgehammer vs. A priori ... an image could be added to both, though I'm certain that the need for an image for the latter would meet with little support. Courtland 01:05, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Delete Not much of a deletionist, but I think this one should go. Burgundavia 11:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Entirely redundant, given {{reqimage}}. Delete. Uncle G 15:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Holding Cell

Move templates here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted.

Template:Sejm Marshals

• Is this really to be deleted? It has no {TfD] tag, and a large number of pages link to it. Noel (talk) 20:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so whoever moved it to the holding cell needs a spanking. I've put the discussion on the template talk page. (The Divide has been done already) — MikeX (talk) 20:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Since the "divide" in effect created other templates, this one is no longer needed. orphan and delete it.--Jiang 06:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• actually, the divide has not been done already. it needs to be done. --Jiang 02:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To convert to category

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

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion moved to the template's Talk page, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

On hold for technical reasons

This is a temporary subsection needed because of a bug in the Wikipedia software; fully orphaned templates which cannot be deleted because of the bug are collected here.

• Template:CompactTOC (external links)
  • Clear BlankVerse 09:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Has block-compressed versions in history, delete on hold. Noel (talk) 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a Template:Pending deletion for these. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Template:CompactTOC (see also)
  • Also clear, but also on delete hold. Noel (talk) 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Template:CompactTOCallplustwo2
  • Ditto. Noel (talk) 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Template:Aboutwikipedia
  • This can't be deleted at present due to a software flaw. Snowspinner 01:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Same block-compressed issue as the ones above. Noel (talk) 02:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Template:Bookshelf- block-compressed revisions. I have rmv'd all linking pages and logged it (preemptively). -Frazzydee|✍ 23:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Template:Cowstub, block-compressed da da da. I've subst'd it on to (all?) of the pages it was on, because IIRC it wasn't ever used seriously. It's on a bunch of BJAODN pages, and I think it does belong there, and should be preserved. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers2- has been logged as deleted because the pending deletion sign has been placed on top of it. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Template:A, block-compressed mumble. Noel (talk) 18:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Template:1, ditto. Noel (talk) 18:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputed (deprecated)

This subsection is deprecated. If the outcome of a proposal for deletion does not result in a clear concensus, the debate may continue on the template's Talk page -- not here.

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

Summary: 2 Delete, 1 Keep ~ Courtland 8 March

(Logged at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05)

We already have two templates which handle both aspects of this one. Template:NowCommons documents that the image is at Commons, and Template:ifd marks those images which are up for deletion. Compare here where I replaced use of this template with the appropriate ones. There is no special reason to combine these two ideas into a single template. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Keep - it should be encouraged to upload files to commons under the same name, to avoid having to change the articles. And there's no reason {{NowCommons}} shouldn't be like this one (which I created not knowing of NowCommons's existence, if it existed at the time). --SPUI (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, but we already have templates to handle this. This one is redundant with those established ones. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Why should we encourage people to keep the same name? A lot of images here are titled in CamelCase; and there's no reason not to fix it when the opportunity arises. I always replace bad names with good when pushing to the Commons. dbenbenn | talk 14:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't care - I just wanted to mention that there's a category associated with these which ought to go away too if the template does. Noel (talk) 05:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Replace it with {{NowCommons}} <br/> {{ifd}} or redirect to NowCommons. User:Alphax/sig 01:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have several images I've uploaded to en, and now reuploaded to Commons. I want to delete the en versions so the Commons versions show through, but I hate having that {{ifd}} on there. It's just temporary, but there's no reason that viewers should see that notice. (I also find it a bit silly that even when I am the creator and uploader of the en image, then upload to Commons, I still can't request speedy deletion even though no images in articles will be broken.) Adding {{NowCommons}} doesn't help much because unless someone knows what Commons is, it doesn't really explain. If I were a random visitor and clicked on an image to get the larger one, I would not understand why this apparently good image was up for deletion, and even a casual editor might not understand. If I can't get my images deleted speedily, I would at least like the deletion notice to clearly explain that it is because there is now a redundant copy and there is no problem with the image per se. User:SPUI saw me struggling and was kind enough to point this out to me. This is not just a combination of those two templates, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that this is not a problem for images which are uploaded under different names to Commons; in that case, the other templates work fine. A casual viewer to the article would see the new Commons image if he followed the link and would be unaware of the old local version which was up for deletion. Anyone who came to the old image would have come specifically seeking that image, and the {{NowCommons}} and {{ifd}} would be more than sufficient. But in the event that you actually think the original name is perfectly adequate and want to move to Commons, while the image is in IFD the article viewers will see the deletion notice, and I don't think the two-template combination is adequate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redundant, so delete or redirect BrokenSegue 21:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listings to log

Templates with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.