Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Template namespace initialisation script (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 23 December 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Sometimes, we want to delete things in the Template namespace. This is particularly used for article series boxes that are either not noteworthy, are redundant with categories, or which have simply been orphaned. For guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable article series box, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. If you vote to keep a series box, be prepared to explain how it fulfills the criteria set up at this page,

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 should be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.

Note that, 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.

To list a template on this page, add it to the list below under the appropriate date. Link to it as [[Template:Insert template here]] instead of as {{Insert template here}}. When listing a template on this page, add {{tfd}} to the top of the template itself. This will add the following text to the template:

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

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.

Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objects to its deletion have been raised. Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible. Archived discussions are located at /Log.

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright problems -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- categories -- templates

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the bottom of the page.

November 27

Template:Arb

  • orphaned, limited usefulness. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)


December 2

Template:-

  • Entire text of this is <br clear="all" />, not a very good use for templates. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
    • Keep - Actually a valid formatting use. Creates a line break without a blank line in between as wikisyntax does. Shorter, and easier, than the HTML. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 15:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - I made this template, because it seems more intuitive and easier to remember that writing the whole thing out. If someone wanted to enter the {{pic}} tag or the some other tag, but it was messing up the formatting, it's useful to be able to type {{-}} in front of it. See the template's talk page for more. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you created this on 28 Sep, and right now it's only being used in 8 articles. It's not listed anywhere helpful so that people know it's existence and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax does a much better treatment on image placement. While it is "nifty", it is just not something people will use. I'd be too worried that someone would change it it to use it in my article, and anyone that later comes to edit would see {{-}} and not know intuitively what it is or is doing. Template messages are for presenting text in a consistent format, not for kludging HTML code. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
    • I understand your hesitation Netoholic, but it is kind of useful. Keep --fvw* 07:32, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
    • Would renaming it to Template:Br help? {{br}} is much more intuitive, as it mirrors the HTML code. sjorford 20:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, that just becomes sneakier in my view, as it's not just a br, it's a br clear all. And {{brclearall}} kind of ruins the point. &#0xfeff; --fvw*
    • Delete. Undocumended. Unneccessarily obfuscates source code just to save a few keystrokes. Stops working when used more than 5 times in one article. -- Naive cynic 21:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • If this were going to be so forever I'd agree with you, but new template loop detection is either in 1.4 or was promised for 1.5, so by the time this has been documented it shouldn't be a problem anymore. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 20:19, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

December 4

Template:R from alternate language and/or alternate spelling

  • more deserving of "monstrosity". --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 01:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Useless with both Template:R from alternate language and Template:R from alternate spelling. delete. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 06:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but can we combine all thes "R from xxx" templates into one concise one? -- Netoholic @ 07:02, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
      • Maybe something like Template:R to English title? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 07:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree that this one template should be deleted (as there are more specific versions at R from alt lang and R from alt spell), but I think the disambiguation of different redirects is useful; I would strongly oppose any such move. — OwenBlacker 20:38, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • I think what Netoholic means is to produce a parameterised template, something like {{R because|reason=alternate language|category=alternate languages}}. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 09:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
          • A parameterised "R because" template would make it more diffcult to export to other formats while ignoring some redirects. For example, having separate "R from alternate spelling" and "R from misspelling" templates makes it possible to create a Tomeraider version of Wikipedia that includes redirects from alternative spellings, but excludes redirects from misspellings. —23:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 5

Template:HSR

Convert to category and delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. - I agree with point Fishal makes. It is a quick and easy way to navigate between the different characters. Hoekenheef 20:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I agree with the above comment. Now there are more keep votes than delete votes.
  • Keep, but Rename -- I don't mind the use of the template tools to help better organize a category, but "HSR" is an abbreviation that may cause conflict in the future. I would suggest moving the template to Template:HomestarChar or something that's relatively simple but unique. --Alexwcovington 23:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Fishal - it is a very handy way of navigating through the Homestar Runner characters. --[[User:Mr. Strong Bad|Mr. Strong Bad/wp talk | hrwiki talk]] 04:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 8

Template:Stubble

It seems to be Template:Stub rewritten in Yoda-speak. It also seems redundant and unnecessary. —No-One Jones 06:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete ... and slap User:Stevertigo upside the head for creating it. -- Netoholic @ 08:11, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAON and delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete and BJAODN. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 00:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 9

Template:Ugly math

I don't see the point of slapping this hideous orange box on top of articles that the reader can already tell are full of difficult and abstract math, and the link to a less complex article which it provides could just as easily be handled with an ordinary cross-reference. —No-One Jones 00:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • delete with extreme prejudice - as NOJ said, and POV too. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 00:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but it does raise the issue that math articles need a good explanation. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV. If an article is too highbrow, don't tag it -- list it on a relevant Wikiproject (math, crypto, etc.) talk page and/or fix it yourself. CryptoDerk 02:39, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep IF reworded. Although I agree it needs rewording, the issue is quite common, people who write technically at times dont explain well. Maybe a more general "this is technically poorly explained and needs to be rewritten" instead? FT2 21:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and reword as necessary. Linking to a different article is very helpful if the reader will have no chance of understanding the current article. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 21:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, preferably with some rewording --TexasDex 22:18, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • What? Even if it would be reworded, its title is still POV. The fact that the article is full of cryptic formulas doesn't mean that the math involved is "ugly". The whole concept of that template must be changed and it would be better if we just delete this one. Grue 07:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely hilarious. Delete. —Ashley Y 15:43, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stating an article needs cleanup is a point of view, as is stating it's not NPOV. These are not valid reasons for deleting those templates. Pure lumps of mathematics are not good encyclopedia copy; check the two articles it's listed on. That kind of stuff needs a honking big orange box. I'd be willing to agree to removing the formula at the top even though I think it adds a certain charm. --fvw* 17:38, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Keep, but reword. I think categorization is good, so why not categorize the "cleanup" messages? Nevertheless, it certainly needs some cleanup itself — when I first saw it I thought it was vandalism! --Pt 23:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I swear, Eequor acts so randomly sometimes. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • keep with super, extreme prejudice I can't begin to count the number of >$100 texts that are poorly written mathematically and I'm talking graduate level texts here. To think wikipedia can't suffer the same fate is putting on rose-colored glasses. I don't agree with the method this template gets the point across, but that can easily be solved by rewriting it. Once again I find wikipedians are quick to delete something that just takes a bit of time to improve. Has nothing to do with highbrow, abstract, or difficult math, just poor authorship. So keep and reword. If this gets deleted I'm putting Template:Attention & Template:Cleanup up for vfd because they are no different than Template:Ugly math in terms of functionality. This template just points out the mathemematics need attention and not the whole article. Cburnett 18:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but saying is not "poorly written", especially if just because you don't get it. Not all math is easy to understand, but rewriting it won't make it better. It's just inherently complex - and not ugly. If you don't feel that math can be beautiful, I'm sorry; but tagging it with this won't help. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 20:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't recall ever saying that so stop playing straw man with it like I did. Beauty, confusion, and eloquence are three seperate, distinct descriptions. What you might consider beautiful could be nothing but uneloquent and extremely confusing. The point is that it could be written better to improve the general understanding of what is being conveyed and the eloquence of doing so. Mathematics is entirely about representing ideas through symbols and there's plenty of margin in there to say the same thing in many different ways of varying beauty and eloquence. This template, rewritten, points out that the mathematical symbols on this page could be better explained or rewritten. The goal is not to create pages full of mathematical equations, beautiful or not, in an obfuscated way. This template points out such pages that can be rewritten in more eloquent ways. Anyone who uses it to point out something they don't understand is inappropriately using the template, which is your apparent claim for deleting this template. This is no different than using Template:Attention on a subject you don't understand, but you'ven't put it up for vfd. Cburnett 20:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If you read the template itself - and the name of the template - it says that the math on this page is ugly. Perhaps - perhaps - if it was greatly reworded and renamed I could stand it - but right now the template is not for pages that "can be rewritten". As it stands now it says the math is "ugly" and that the contributor of the template does not understand it - it is "incomprehensible". Why else would it say "if you understand"? - if the contributor understood he would fix it himself, not tag it. The template was made for articles that are beyond the understanding of the reader, not poorly written. They don't need rewriting, they need a primer. My point with my above comment was not to misinterpret anything you said - it was to state that the equation I used is beyond the understanding of some people, but it wouldn't deserve an "ugly math" tag by your interpretation of the tag - it's neither poorly written nor ineloquent, it's just how you write it. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 22:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Speculation about the creator and his word choice is really a waste of time. All but two keep votes have explicitly said to reword it, which essentially nullifies your "beef" with it. Cburnett 03:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not speculating, I'm reading what the template says - "ugly", "if you understand", and "incomprehenisble". A simple rewrite won't cut it - the template needs to be moved to a NPOV name and redone from the ground up as a cleanup tag, not as a "oh man I don't get this math so I'm gonna go read a different article" tag. --03:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason for deleting a proper cleanup template. jni 10:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but reword - Same exact reason as Cburnett states. Hoekenheef 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is a horrible flamebait. Its name is a flamebait, too. -- Naive cynic 11:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid cleanup template. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


December 12

Template:Seecat

Template:Merge :Category:Nobel laureates

  • Unused. Thue | talk 11:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to have outlived its use is some project circa November 16. delete. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 04:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 13

Template:D

  • Delete old, dilapidated uses to recreate as an uber-shortcut for Template:delete, in the tradition of Template:db. And Mediawiki:d too. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 04:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yay, delete. --fvw* 07:17, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
      • Move to date and delete. Oven Fresh 21:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Deletions are an important form of maintenance, but not important enough to require a one-letter template. The other use is redundant, given we have Template:date. jni 10:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 15

====Template:PD-self-wikipedia==== Delete, as there's no such thing as "public domain for Wikimedia only": public domain is public domain. —msh210 21:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Good point. delete --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 22:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • delete --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 06:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I fear that makes no sense whatsoever. Delete &#0xfeff;--fvw* 06:22, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
    • (As the one who wrote the copyright faq) Whoever wrote this template knows absolutely nothing about copyright whatsoever. →Raul654 06:53, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete. As it stands, it makes no sense. I can hardly begin to understand where the author is trying to go with it. The best I got is the desire to release an image with unrestricted usage for any wikimedia's projects only. Any way to salvage this idea? Any merit to an idea like this? Cburnett 07:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, and we already have it. It's template:permission, and you're not supposed to use it (IE, unless they're special cases, files under that license may and eventually probably will be removed) →Raul654 08:13, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Self-contradictory. Delete. -- Naive cynic 12:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 19

Template:Otherplaces

  • Basically a duplicate of Template:Otheruses, and serves only as m:instruction creep. Its not often that the disambig page lists only other place names. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
    • del.--Jiang
    • Keep! The reason the disambig page doesn't usually just list other place names is that Wikipedia is quite undeveloped on the geography side. Not only in the United States but in Europe, very many places (my estimate is about 10-15%) share their name with others; and almost every famous place does (Paris, Venice, Florence, Moscow, etc.). The overwhelming majority, in turn, of such proper nouns are not the names of people, cars, or other non-places. At any rate, instruction creep is not involved, since the instruction given to the reader is no more detailed or complex than that in the (rather ugly) phrasing of Template:Otheruses. — Bill 02:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses1

  • Created as a "meta-template" for Template:Otheruses and Template:Otheruses2, but it's not that hard to maintain consistent formatting between the two. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll agree so long as someone does a subst into the two templates - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • They are, nevertheless, not consistent at the moment I write this. Keep and restore. -- Naive cynic 12:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Template:Otheruses-number will also benefit from sharing formatting with Template:Otheruses and Template:Otheruses2. -- Naive cynic 12:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • No, it could not, otheruses-number uses different phrasing altogether. In any case, using "meta-templates" (templates inserted in other templates) is poor design, and doubles the backend processing required to use this template. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
          • Out of curiosity, is such increase of resource usage noticeable? -- Naive cynic 21:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I would guess that it is, consider the hundreds (thousands?) of pages that {(otheruses)} is used on. You might ask User:Jamesday. He's a system administrator for the project. -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
    • Isn't even used right now for "meta-templating" - as Neto said, it's easy to replicate/retain format. delete. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 19:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Women

  • This template is too big and looks hideous when there are multiple boxes such as at Wilma Rudolph. Templates are not replacements for lists just because they look cool. The women here from different years have no close relation among each other to warrant this template. Link to Olympic medalists in athletics (women) (template box duplicated there) and make a category instead. --Jiang 11:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


December 20

Template:Past-vfd

(and redirect at Template:Past-vfd)

Looks like this was used at some point to put a note on certain pages that a previous VFD took place. It made a like to a /deletion subpage where the VfD discussion was copied to. Modern practice on VFD, though, is to copy the VFD discussion directly into the Talk: page, so this is not something we need anymore. Will require some cleanup (copying the /deletion text to Talk: and deleting) on the pages where it is being used. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

  • Delete. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 21:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Template that supports an archaic practise. No utility anymore. jni 09:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Polvfd

Completely unused. Not likely to ever be. -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Template:DVD cover

This template is a duplicate of Template:DVDcover. The latter seems to be in much more widespread use. I see no reason to keep this template. -- Benjamin Goldenberg

  • Delete, not in use. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Template:TempUndelete

This forms the basis of a particularly condescending and destructive response to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deliberately blanking and protecting undeleted articles is a terrible idea.

  • Delete. [[User:Eequor|‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 21:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Constructive way to make a deleted article's history available for review by non-sysops without clouding the issue of its status. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could be useful. jni 09:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 22

Template:Lines

Except for Purple Line, all the links and locations are on disambiguation pages. Something like this should be done for each transit system, but on a general scale like this there is an infinite number of possible names for colored lines. --SPUI 22:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Holding Cell

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (Admin or otherwise) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted. If you've cleared a page, note it here.

Remove Entirely

Convert to category

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=8731870"