Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:32, 16 August 2005

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current

Adding a listing

Please put new listings under today's date (May 22) at the top of the section.
When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

August 16

Template:Cuba infobox

Delete: The one main namespace page that used it Cuba has been modified to to use Template:Infobox Country instead. Caerwine 16:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American

Delete: In addition to not being a Soap Box, Wikipedia is also not dark blue. This unused template is a waste of space for an enyclopedia. Hipocrite 14:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keepIf you're biggest problem with the template, is the color of the template, then change the color, don't nominate it for deletion--I-2-d2 15:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to the personal namespace of the user to use this template. Halibu tt 16:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

A previous edit war seems to have determined that this meta-template is harmful. It was then blanked, which is how I noticed it. I checked through the using pages and I believe I have now converted them all to use the appropriate one from Wikipedia:Sister projects, so this can be deleted. -- Beland 02:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then. A series of sister templates custom-tailored by article is better than this one, which basically asserts that the article has useful related content in each sisterproject (which is rare at best). R adiant _>|< 10:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. This one's a tough call. It's been on TFD twice before (1, 2), and kept both times. However, much of the discussion on this template's talk page seems to indicate a legitimate concern about the use of meta-templates and the effect on the server. The best option would likely be to subst: the old version into the templates it uses (which appears to have been done already), and to delete it. Again, however, tough call. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zelda series and Template:Mario series

Why do we need these when we have categories? They're huge and useless. Andre (talk) 04:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Easy access to Zelda and Mario games. There. -- A Link to the Past 04:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Corvun 06:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful navigational template, Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change that godawful color!--Kross 07:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but might I suggest that they are somewhat overly large? Using abbreviations may help, rather than repeating the phrase "super mario world" five times. R adiant _>|< 08:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful navigational template. It goes at the bottom of the article, so it's not like it's getting in the way of anything important. Nohat 08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categories can't be organized like these navigational templates can. BlankVerse ∅ 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I've changed the colors to something hopefully less garish. Coffee 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the colors are boring now, but there's no good reason to get rid of the template.Rhindle The Red 18:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

{{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}

Mentioned below in the discussion on {{Seemain}}, it seems prudent to separate the discussions since people probably have different opinions here. Delete these, there are overly many of them and they're not very pointful. R adiant _>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete reasons from earlier discussions. Vegaswikian 22:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below: they're useful. I feel more strongly about 2 to 4 than the rest though. Septentrionalis 19:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

Template:Fantasy

A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on. DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nom) DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its "value" are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete. --Corvun 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep useful. Improve rather than destruct. The JPS 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify. It's a good idea but it's far too big and unwieldy. I'd like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: That's pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template's talk page or the fantasy talk page. --Corvun 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The "fantasy authors" and "list of fantasy authors" should be dropped to just "fantasy authors" and that promoted up one level so it remains. Courtland 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I've divided the template into "articles" and "categories", with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%.
Keep and correct if needed. Halibu tt 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Seemain and Template:SeeMain

Note: Voting suspended. This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through "What links here". The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted.

Delete: Redirected in earlier TfD, has now been orphaned except for some Talk and User pages. SEWilco 01:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stbalbach 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template:main, or even better, template:see details is enough I think. This one seems to imply some kind of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the definition of Template:main was changed today. Template_talk:Main#Template_usage_changed SEWilco 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Note that this change was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator's original intention and the tag's overwhelmingly popular application. —Lifeisunfair 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking for {{seemain}} when they mean {{main}} and it is too much trouble with very little benefit to try and cure everyone of this confusion. Dragons flight 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Despite the nominator's claim to the contrary, {{seemain}} had not been orphaned. I just removed it from nineteen articles, many of which are extremely prominent: Creationism, Final Fantasy airships, Gautama Buddha, Germany, Homosexuality, Human, Kashmir, The Legend of Zelda series enemies, Malaysia, Napoleon I of France, National Basketball Association, New Zealand, Portland, Oregon, Races of Final Fantasy, Slavery, Tutankhamun, United States, Wikipedia and WWE SmackDown! (video game). —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of those articles appear in Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Seemain, which is only showing discussion and User pages that the bot ignored. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

As stated above, I removed the template from all nineteen of those articles. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect Whatlinkshere entries for a redirected template are created in the target template, thus Whatlinkshere:main probably contains some seemain references. The TfD vote can continue, this problem merely means that all cleanup deletions of redirected templates have to deal with such technical issues. (SEWilco 19:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Last night, when the nineteen articles in question were listed on the "Whatlinkshere" page, {{seemain}} was not a redirect; it contained the TfD notice. As Radiant indicated, three of the titles (Germany, Human and New Zealand) appeared when users made unrelated edits to the corresponding articles (after I first viewed the "Whatlinkshere" page and began removing the template). —Lifeisunfair 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. A Redirect page does not allow the TfD template, so the apparently-orphaned redirect was replaced with the TfD template. When I reported the templates were orphans those articles were not in Whatlinkshere:Seemain, and appeared when edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Along the way, I discovered the existence of ten additional templates that belong to this set: {{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}. —Lifeisunfair 06:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, articles containing {{seemain}} continue to appear on the list (without anyone adding the template). For the time being (until this problem has been resolved), I've restored the redirect. (And if you really stop to think about it, a TfD message in an orphaned template serves little purpose.) —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What "list"? (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I was referring to this list. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The articles which showed in Whatlinksher:Seemain were those which were edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete those extra templates #2-#20; where did those come from anyway? As for the first one, I have no objection to the redirect. Templates sometimes get a longer 'whatlinkshere' when articles containing them are 'touched', so for an oft-used template it's not necessarily possible to find all links to it. Try using google as an alternate method.

R adiant _>|< 08:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The extra templates 2-20 are for multiple references, and will be converted later thus are not part of this TfD. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

As noted below, the numbered templates (excepting {{seemain2}}) are extraneous. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {seemain} and at least 2 through 4 of the others. Useful, and easier to maintain than typing in the same italicized sentence all the time. Septentrionalis 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect {{seemain}} and {{seeMain}} to {{main}}; redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}}; delete all of the other numbered templates (which are extraneous, because {{main2}} can link to any plural quantity of articles). —Lifeisunfair 17:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect everything including {{see details}} to {{main}}. Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{main2}} (I think it was easier to put this vote as an entry given the number of templates being discussed here, I am not voting twice.) Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The JPS 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

Template:Chem-cat

Delete: A convenient and systematic way to crowd the article namespace with suggestions for editors, which (last I checked) were deprecated. Also, if you're going to add this template to a page, you might as well just fulfill the suggestion and skip the extra step. --Smack (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the above. - SimonP 15:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Might be reasonable if placed on a talk page. Presumably should be placed only by an editor who is not sure what the proepr subcat is. weak keep if restricted to talk pages and properly documented. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only if the template is moved from every article it is currently on to the articles' talk pages. If not moved, then delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is used at the bottom of the article, onobtrusively. The chemistry category now has 172 articles. If I knew the appropriate subcategory for these articles, I would go ahead and take care of it myself. The category has had the "cleancat" tag, on its talk page, since May 1. Maurreen (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a good idea but it's better taken from the category (and WikiProject:chemistry) than by sticking a template on each related article and asking 'can someone else please help'. R adiant _>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: It's just in the way and superfluous. ~K 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: For the sake of curiosity, how does this template have less value or make any more of a problem than, for example, the stub or wikifacation templates, when those needs are evident in the articles? And for the sake of efficiency, can anyone suggest a more effective method to accomplish the same thing, especially for those categories without a project? For example, Category:Computing got Template:Cleancat on 22 June. I requested help with Category:Computing at Talk:Computing on 27 July. The main cat still has more than 150 articles. Maurreen (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your time would probably be better spent recategorizing than slapping a template on each article. I don't really believe there is such a thing as overpopulation of a category. And if someone doesn't know where to categorize an article, we would want them to put it in a general category so that someone more knowledgable could come along and recategorize it properly. —Mike 02:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think putting a template on the category would be useful (e.g. "this category is getting too large, please move items to its subcats"). Cleaner-uppers could more easily work from there. R adiant _>|< 13:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

comment: 150 articles ... that is certainly not an example of overpopulation of a category in my opinion. On the other hand, 1,500 would present more of a problem. Courtland 01:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It usually requires significant expertise in a subject to expand a stub, and it can take a lot of work to wikify an article. IMHO, fussing with categories is fairly quick and requires only superficial knowledge. What we need is a tag placed in the category page that marks it as too large. --Smack (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to generalize this to accept a parameter to the category. Or perhaps simply a template which says: This article is not categorized specifically enough. Or perhaps not. As with article text, people will come along and fix this. Eventually. --MarSch 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too specific, but I strongly encourage the generalization of this to a talk page located, {{cleanup-subcat}} tag. Hope that helps. JesseW 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too specific. Not very useful. -- Reinyday, 15 August 2005
Delete. The template {{verylarge}} should be used as a general solution; this template places the category into the "cleanup" cateogory Category:Overpopulated categories. Courtland 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Areas of Edinburgh

Delete: Offers no extra navigational function than the existing identical category. The majority are red links, and is often bigger than the articles themselves (i.e. Murrayfield). It attracts the creation of substandard articles to turn the red links into blue (I've cleaned up New Town, Edinburgh, but it's still weak). The JPS 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listify: to be precise, substitute the present list into Areas of Edinburgh; convert the template into a link to that article and to the category; add the category to the template. This will be easier to navigate than a bald category, which is uncoubtedly why the template exists at all. Septentrionalis 15:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, that is what the page Areas of Edinburgh used to be. See this revision. Is that really better? Maccoinnich 22:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - Is there any way to divide the list into sections? The JPS 22:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean, use the {subst:Areas of Edinburgh) there; which will keep the present appearance; as I have just done. You don't need a template to have a pretty appearance; you just need the code. Septentrionalis 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is useful to have on each page. If anything, I think the page Areas of Edinburgh should be deleted, just leaving the template. The fact that there isn't a perfect article from each link is hardly a reason to delete the template. Maccoinnich 19:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Listify. R adiant _>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Listify per Septentrionalis. -Splash 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

Template:Green; Template:Red; Template:Blue

I have no idea how many other of these there are, but I have just noticed them cropping up in WP:FAC and other places. I think they are as bad as {{object}} and its ilk, which were deleted a few months ago. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ugly, confusing, don't work right delete Mozzerati 19:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- keep.What is your evidence that green and red and blue don't work right other than the {tfd}, which will go away again? Septentrionalis 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'f your suggesting deletion, please don't give a worthless reason. Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've said it before, and I fully expect to say it again. TFD is not, at least in my opinion, a way to go about regulating user behavior. If you are offended by colored doodads, then write a style guideline on voting and get consensus approval for it. However, right now there is nothing wrong with these templates and if someone wants to pretty up user or talk space, I know of no consensus saying it is forbidden. While we are at it, I noticed that {{Red}} has actually been used in a number of drug-related articles to create red warning tags. Dragons flight 20:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I have created {{tfd-inline}} for the purposes of having a TFD template that can fit into the flow of text without breaking it into multiple lines. Obviously you can see the effect of this on the red, green, and blue mentions by Septentrionalis above. Dragons flight 20:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks Septentrionalis 15:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless. Grue 20:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not as bad as the other ones we deleted because comments were made that the images increased load times, that argument can't be made here. Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful. ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tfd-inlineKeep, great fun. Flowerparty ^talk 02:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oh do come along. Dunc|☺ 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's kinda handy in using the formatting. --Amr Hassan 13:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful for those who find them useful. For those who don't, well forget about them. They're doing no harm. The JPS 16:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I agree with Dragons flight. ALoan should have initiated a discussion regarding the behavior to which he/she objects, instead of attempting to eliminate the legitimate means by which said behavior is accomplished. —Lifeisunfair 16:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst overuse of color is bad there are legitimate uses for it and having to write html for it is a pita. Plugwash 22:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and subst, per Plugwash. If the user is expecting one use for it, they don't want it changing in the future. It is potentially useful for the non-HTML fluent among us. I won't use it, but I have no objection to others using it properly (i.e. in relevant situations and with subst:, as the template call is unnecessary). [[smoddy]] 23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment using subst on templates like this is a double edged sword, on the one hand it reduces server load slightly (yes i know netoholic has been crusading against templates on the basis of a very vauge comment by jamesday but when i actually tried to speak to jamesday about the issue he seemed to ignore my questions as if it wasn't all that significant after all). However subst also dumps the html from the template into the wikitext making it harder to follow. Plugwash 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, I never thought I'd be defending Netoholic. Please read WP:AUM - Jamesday is likely not answering you because he has lots of things on his hands, and it's been debated to death already. This issue is very real. R adiant _>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
del, how lazy can you get? Besides if someone uses a template like this you have to look it up to see what it does, while a simple font-tag is much clearer and cleaner. When programming you also don't make functions for every tidbit, then also don't make a template for every trivial task. It's just stupid. You need only see the font version once to know how it works and if not just keep a copy on your user page. Hey Radiant, don't defend Netoholic and not vote. Defend AND vote. --MarSch 17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's less typing, and the meaning is obvious once you look at the page (not the wikitext). ~~ N (t/c) 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shouldn't be colouring text, and definitely not with the font tag. ed g2s • talk 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sexual_orientation

I propose deletion for several reasons: One is that this is a topic that, if not seen as inherently POV, at least attracts many POV-warriors. Furthermore, there is no need for this article series box; the subject is hard to reduce to a few articles, and bound to invite heated debates over what should and should not be included. Right now the articles are quite randomly choosen, and that is the improved version -- in the initial one, transgender was listed as a sexual orientation, and the debate on the talk page did not leave the impression that the maker of said template was much willing to discuss that obvious mistake. This is not the first attempt to do an ASB on this (or closely related) topics; see Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed) for a discussion of a previous attempt. Much of the criticism applies here, too. -- AlexR 13:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - information better served by categories than a template. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 13:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few lists regarding this and similar topics if one wishes for a more ordered reading guide. -- AlexR 13:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a useful navigational tool and provides a fairly compact organization to much of the relevant knowledge. If important things are missing they should be added and organization improved, not just delete the whole thing. AlexR, most of your argument seems to boil down to "I don't want to fight about what goes in this template", which is not a good reason to delete it. Certainly you wouldn't make the argument that we should delete the article on homosexuality just cause people will fight over it? Of course there will be disagreements in this area of Wikipedia, can't be helped, but no one is forcing you to participate. Disclaimer: After this was listed for deletion, I editted it to make it less huge and slightly more readible. Dragons flight 14:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- You are misreading my arguments - the "what goes in it" is just one part of the problem; and unlike an article the real estate space in an ASB is very limited. -- AlexR 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I reread your statement including references to "POV-warriors", "heated debate" and what you perceive as a failed discussion on transgender. Forgive me, but I still get the impression that you are complaining primarily about the difficulty in getting people to agree. If you have another argument, could you please try making it a little clearer for me? Also, how many articles do you think it needs? There are already 31 links there. Adding a few more wouldn't hurt, or it could be condensed by linking to list pages covering the appropriate topic, rather than all the pages individually. Still I don't see deletion as an appropriate solution to what I percieve as a content dispute. Dragons flight 18:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    - As I already said, I think the very format of an article series box is unsuitable for this subject - and I linked to a page going into more detail already. Subjects as complex as this one are, in my opinon, much better served by lists and categories; hence, no such ASB is the solution of my choice. (And as can be seen from the article linked above, that is not exactly a position I've only held since yesterday.) And of course the fact that it is an extremely controversial subject does not help, either. Those, however, are two arguments, not one. As for "how many" - that is a pretty irrelevant question. It is which ones go into that are the problem, not how many. Should - for example - such an ASB try to go from "homosexual and heterosexual", or from "gay and lesbian", or maybe from "androphilia and gynophilia"? Cases can be made for all three apporaches, but if they were put into one ASB that think would drown the article. OTOH, if one approach is choosen, it would be entirely appropriate, and from some points of view even necessary, to make a box for the other two approaches. Not a desireable idea, if you ask me. -- AlexR 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for further discussion. I only created it 4 days ago, and I think the principle of a seriesbox is a useful one. It complements, rather than replaces, categories, because it highlights the major articles of the topic. Obviously there will be disagreement about what they are, and maybe about what the topic is, which will be handled in the usual Wikipedia way. (I'm mystified by AlexR's comment about my not being willing to discuss the inclusion of transgender; I'd said 3 days ago "Let's see if there are any more comments".) Rd232 15:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are? That link very obviously did not belong there, so what was there to wait about? Nevertheless, I, like you (hopefully), waited, and nothing came. So I removed the entry, but actually, this does not make this ASB any more useful. -- AlexR 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the intentions of the creator, it's bound to end up being used for POV pushing, jguk 17:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Categorify and~~ Delete, doesn't have a linear series to it per WP:CSL. -Splash 19:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Although WP:CSL is of unclear status, this does not prevent it being used as a reason for a vote. I think that this particular point from CSL is a good one, so my vote stands. -Splash 17:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify and delete. The inherent POV attraction of this template can be seen already. Here's a question that will be among the first things that's going to attract POV-warriors and trolling: "Why pink?" Tomer ^TALK 19:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Category:Sexual orientation already exists. -- AlexR 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As does Category:LGBT. The relationship is far from clear. Rd232 09:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I like the idea but doesn't fit the rules on WP:CSL. Changed to no vote because of below comment. We do, after all, have {{Jew}} and similar. ~~ N (t/c) 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is WP:CSL, Really? I have never heard mention of WP:CSL before, which is more than a little odd given the number of navigational templates that come through here. There is no tag for {proposed}, {guideline}, {policy}, etc. Further there are abundant examples of navigational templates which wouldn't meet the strict linear series rule. Based on this discussion, it would in fact appear there is little consensus for that part of the guideline anyway. I am going to bring this issue up at the Village Pump. Dragons flight 00:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- My comments at the pump are here. Dragons flight 01:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Rename ? I don't really know how to do this voting thing. But my vote would be that this is worthy of being kept, but should be renamed to something like 'sexuality' or 'sexual orientation issues'. Because it isn't really about sexual orientation, is it? It's about sexual orientation as it relates to politics and society. If this were about sexual orientation it would contain stuff like "lgpt performers" or "strapons" and stuff. Also, it might make more sense to make this be a separate category page type thing instead of a box that's always hanging there. Awk 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea but should be discussed in a more central place. R adiant _>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 00:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you do keep this, change the color scheme to something other than pink. To me as a homosexual male that just seems so... stereotypical. :P Espantajo 00:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the pink came from the marketing template it was derived from. I don't mind what colour it is! Rd232 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bad title and as a result suboptimal cohesion between included articles. Keep, since those are not reasons for deletion as long as it is used. --MarSch 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well used and links to various related topics in just the same way that Template:Christianity does, for example. I don't see any reason to delete it. — OwenBlacker 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per OwenBlacker. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename. I generally prefer series boxes above categories, but this one isn't about sexual orientation. It's about homosexuality, with a few token "where does orientation come from" links thrown in, and a link to heterosexuality second to homosexuality. At the very least it should be renamed Template:Homosexuality. It shouldn't exist in its current form at its current location. It could, however, be useful if retooled or shortened. But if it's shortened enough, maybe a category is better, even though I don't like categories. --Golbez 08:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, I wasn't sure what the focus of it should be - "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality". I still don't. Rd232 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment: I don't see a reason for this being deleted? The two given in the nomination text are that it is and/or will attract 'POV warriors' but I do not see that we should be forced to delete anything for that reason, else a whole myriad of other articles should be nominated too, the second reason given was that there are too many potential articles which should and/or could be included, are there any which are actually missing from the template which anyone feels should go in? (or visa-versa?) finally the third reason is that a category is more suited to the job, I don't think this is the case personally, I think ASBs allow the main topics to be navigated to much easier. -- Joolz 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:32, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Template:Npov-intro/Template:POV-intro

This is completely unused and should probably be deleted. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, brilliant, this is just the template for the creation science article (and I'm sure a few others). The article itself is usually fine, as critism and supporting arguments have their own sections, but the intro has been causing a lot of problems. Is this template documented? -- Ec5618 11:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect both to Template:POV-section. Good idea but redundant. R adiant _>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep' - and use more widely. The intro is often the most contentious section, and a template that makes that crystal clear is very useful. The "section" version is not clear enough, IMO, when used to refer to an intro (people may not be clear about what it's referring to). Rd232 13:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and list on Wikipedia:Templates. Is there also an in-line version of {npov}; like {dubious} is of {accuracy}? Septentrionalis 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it exists, that would be Template:POV-section like I said above. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - No - put dubious and Pov-section in a page - you'll see the difference. The former is inline, the latter is not - it floats above the line. Rd232 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del per Radiant --MarSch 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shh

Delete: Looks like a vanity/advert link to a movie site. Jpers36 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I don't know what you're talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer? why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it's not like it's mine, or that I'm making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they're almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. --Amr Hassan 07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the "external links" section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don't see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok.. count how many articles it's used in .. what are templates for anyway? and what harm is it doing right now?--Amr Hassan 08:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia's purpose is not to advertise other websites. R adiant _>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This looks very similer to {{imdb title}} (t/l) or {{isfdb name}} (t/l) to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different? DES ^(talk) 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link. DES ^(talk) 12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. It's not very useful and does seem to be vanity.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per DES. Carioca 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think it's useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.--DizerX 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, per DES --MarSch 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

Template:New Template

Currently blank. Looks like some sort of test template. Exabyte (talk) 03:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It was a test template. The first revision said test. -Hyad 04:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy. WP:CSD, general #1 & #2. Dragons flight 04:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Uncyclopedia link

Delete: I don't think we should be linking to Uncyclopedia. — Itai (f&t) 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We allready voted to delete an Uncylopedia template just a few weeks ago. Stbalbach 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is nearly identical to the deleted history of Template:Uncyclopedia, which underwent a TFD here. I've orphaned and tagged it. —Cryptic (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Las Vegas casinos

Delete : See Talk Page for template. Short version: Suggest using List of greater Las Vegas resorts. – …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 08:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The author responded to questions about the template on the talk page by removing all text from the template. It was not clear what purpose it was intended to serve. Since it is empty, there is probably no reason to keep it. Vegaswikian 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

Template:Otherusesabout

Worrying new template that ecourages repetition of opening paragraph above it for disambiguation. Template:Otheruses is already the standard way to provide a disambiguation link. ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (By which I mean bot all uses to Template:Otheruses, then delete.) ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That being voted, I'll say that "worrying" is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air. Courtland 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Note the (nearly) identical template, {{otheruses1}}. Coincidentally, a template named {{otheruses1}} was deleted per TFD consensus in December 2004 --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3 to 1 is not exactly "consensus", or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. —Lowellian (talk) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Let's reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the "old" template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn't make any difference. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundancy stinks. -- jiy^Talk 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Redundancy is sometimes necessary. --DuKot 01:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with {{otheruses1}}. CG 09:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu

Template:Otheruses1 is now orphaned. I propose we delete this too as it is pretty much identical (unless anyone thinks we need to vote separately?). ed g2s • talk 14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they're practically identical. Anyone who's voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don't need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up.

Delete redundant. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why people want to delete this. It's not identical to Template:Otheruses, so it's not redundant, right? —Lowellian (talk) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep overdeletionism is a pain in the arse, redirectionism is better. Dunc|☺ 13:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provides context not given by Template:Otheruses. -Sean Curtin 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's the wrong way to do disambiguation. Context is given by the first line/paragraph of the article. ed g2s • talk 08:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu
Delete redundant with introductory paragraph. JesseW 06:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James F. (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV Network

Ddespie@san.rr.com put {{tfd}} on this but maybe forgot to add to this page, but I agree with the deletion and will put it up. Provides an infobox for TV Networks with the network's logo and some information that doesn't seem very useful or specific for an 'at-a-glance' reference. -Kwh 02:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not helpful, nothing really that can be done with this template that can't be better done with categories. -Kwh 02:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This template appears to be a sloppily written infobox, so Cleanup and Move to an infobox template, if such does not already exist. Otherwise, simply delete.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it were expanded and cleaned up maybe, but delete otherwise.
✮ Fredo (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delete. I've already created a separate template - template:Infobox Network - which I've applied to some of the networks where the template in question previously appeared. Stickguy 03:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

Template:Jo_Mango

Delete: self-indulgent band template. The band itself manages 358 google hits and they haven't relesased any records yet. Flowerparty ^talk 18:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only used on one article, as well. --Baron Larf 01:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, not useful. Perhaps keeping it in talk and seing if the thingie develops would be a decent idea. Halibu tt 13:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Halibutt --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity spilling over into template space! Aargh! -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ccm

Template was suggested 17 July but no interest/response to develop and not adequate as is - based on music genre template Paul foord 14:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks good to me; if it needs to develop, let's develop it, not delete it. --Baron Larf 01:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and develop - as per what Baron Larf said. Halibu tt 13:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid infobox type thingy, needs development. Alphax ^τεχ 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - excellent template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if noone expressed any interest in using it, why have it hanging around? In the end, it will just be replaced by a redesign if someone wants such an infobox and the signs would seem to be that they don't. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now being used Paul foord 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, used --MarSch 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adultswim

{{Adultswim}} produces [adult swim]. Need I say more? —Cryptic (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Eh, I made it to reflect the way they write their name. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:11, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
Delete. Well intentioned, but per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), we don't stylize names in this way. Dragons flight 14:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per Dragons flight --Baron Larf 01:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As mentioned we shouldn't be using the brackets. ed g2s • talk 15:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del --MarSch 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SoftwareProduct

An unnecessary fork of Template:Infobox Software. --minghong 06:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del, unused --MarSch 16:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football in Portugal

Overkill template, with two other templates included (which are of value individually) and a list of seasons, with only one article done. Large, bulky and next to useless, as if needed, the two templates can be placed seperately and the list of seasons converted into a wikilink of template:Football in Portugal table cells, which I've struggled earlier to make barely usable. After FiP is deleted, the "table cells" template could have that part of the name removed, and used for division and federation articles ^wS;✉ 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too heavy handed for its purpose. With that purpose only really being one article, it could just be subst:ed. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep --MarSch 16:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FFVI Places

A template once used to easily access the different articles covering Final Fantasy VI locations, but there is already an article called List of Final Fantasy VI locations which regroups all locations of Final Fantasy VI. It is now unused and unneeded as far as I can see, but I will still place an announcement about it at the Wikiproject Final Fantasy's discussion page in case someone would oppose. – DarkEvil 05:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Delete --ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --*drew 12:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flowerparty ^talk 22:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have List of Final Fantasy VI locations already. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — WARPEDmirror 02:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at my name; I think I should know FFcruft when I see it. Footer boxes are for very similar things; countries in a region, states in a country; governors of a state. Being two locations in a video game doesn't quite fit the criteria, especially since there will be little interest in horizontal research. --Golbez 08:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

August 8

Template:Block

Created in the middle of an admin war, way too agressive, redundant with {{test5}}. Delete. --cesarb 03:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can tone it down. I think it's a good idea, keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could with the wording (which was initially a little inapropriate), but I still see it as a bit useless. If anything needs more explanation than test5 can provide (ie, cite specific policies), then it's clear we would need a personalized, custom message that can actually provide details, not just slap on this template. Dmcdevit·t 04:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Copying my own comment from WP:AN/I:
I, however, sent it to TFD. Way too flashy, and the "note to sysops" is just dumb — administrators are supposed to know that rule (and a lot of others) already. We didn't waste hours of our life pouring over the administrator's reading list after (or even before) we got the sysop flag for nothing. --cesarb 04:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a templated "you have been blocked" message, while convienient, encourages admins to take blocking too lightly. If you're going to block someone, you should at least have the inconvienience of having to compose an explanation to put on the user's talk page. --05:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with the above. R adiant _>|< 10:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There's just one fly in the ointment: admins don't necessarily feel pressure to inconvenience themselves without such a message. After all, can't people read the block log? </sarcasm> JRM · Talk 10:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, fugly, feature creep. Dan100 (Talk) 22:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary. Flowerparty ^talk 21:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per everything above. Shem^(talk) 06:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yuk. -Splash 19:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or Move to {{obnoxious msg}}. Tomer ^TALK 19:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:SI electricity units and Template:SI magnetism units

A noble idea, but empty and unused. Agentsoo 10:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think, and populate. It is indeed a noble idea that is not superceded by a cat or a list. I presume we have articles on all the SI units, so templateboxing them seems like a good idea. If this is kept, I might even do it myself if the closing admin gives me a prod. -Splash 19:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del, blank templates = unuseful --MarSch 16:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Confederate States infobox

Delete. Nothing links to it except a General namespace redirect, and Wikipedia:List of blank pages. As far as I can tell, nothing ever came of using this template, or placing it on former Confederate states' pages ran against community consensus. ral315 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete blank template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was rejected by the states over which it has "jurisdiction", then it's not usable at all. --Titoxd 20:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CurrentCSBCOTW

Delete. Template for the former Wikipedia:CSB Collaboration of the Week, which was dissolved nearly five months ago. ral315 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

August 7

Template:OriginalResearch (and Category:Original research disputes)

"The novelty of research or terms used in this article is disputed." This is a rather obscure (and mostly unused) form of dispute resolution, and we already have far too many confusing variations on {{disputed}}. R adiant _>|< 08:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly appropriate way to identify cases of alleged original research. Also I don't see how it's a form of dispute resolution, since it simply directs users to the talk page. Thus, unless it actually does overlap with another template, keep. -- Visviva 13:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The real objection is that it duplicates Template:original research, which is more clearly phrased, and is named more in template style; compare {cfd} which is lower case throughout. But if someone wants to call it OriginalResearch, I have no problem with that. Septentrionalis 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This one is too wordy and confusing. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:original research; there is too much in here that is said more clearly elsewhere.-Splash 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

Template:US Trade Representative

Delete, Unneeded overspecialization of Template:Succession box. I have converted everything that used it so succession box so it is completely uneeded. gren グレン 20:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del, unused--MarSch 16:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MP3Search.Ru

Delete. Unused, currently blank. Created by Mike garcia, never correctly debugged, as far as I can see. From November 2004. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Delete. If you go into the page history, you can see that it was only a test (sandbox) template created by Mike Garcia. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The West Wing (TV)

Delete. Unused. Currently blank. Has been replaced in article with a table. No likelihood of ongoing use. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Delete. Blanked by Xinoph an hour after he created it. --Baron Larf 20:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Alsace infobox

Redundant with Template:Infobox French Région that could be used on Alsace instead. For a discussion see also WikiProject French régions. -- User:Docu

The template Template:Infobox French Région was used for only 3 of the 26 régions of France, whereas the other 23 régions have each a specific infobox which is more detailed and better laid out than the generic Template:Infobox French Région, so I am puting specific infoboxes for the three remaining régions. It's better to have specific infoboxes for each région rather than a generic infobox for all the régions because each région has its own peculiarities, and one generic infobox cannot do the job (some régions need footnotes, some don't, some régions are made up of several départements, while some régions are monodepartmental, etc.). Hardouin 15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-This infobox is much better laid out then Template:Infobox French Région and it is also much more detailed. If Template:Infobox French Région really is only used on three articles, I think IT should be up for deletion. Sometimes, people here try too hard to standardize things and over-standardization (is that a word?) can sometimes lead to decreased quality, as is shown with Template:Infobox French Région IMO. --Gpyoung ^talk 16:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't all Regions used to use Template:Infobox French Région? It is fairly easy to add additional fields to the infobox. If an infobox can be made for all countries it should be easy for French regions.-- User:Docu
Like Gpyoung rightly said, sometimes people try too hard to standardize things, for no real reason. Individual infoboxes take more time to design in the first place, but then they are much more flexible in use than a generic infobox. Besides, I would like to point out that the infoboxes for French régions were all designed with the same format, so if you check several French régions, you'll have the impression the infobox is a unique standardized infobox, whereas in fact it is specific to each région. So we get both the benefit of standardization (uniform format) and the benefit of specific infoboxes (flexibility). Hardouin 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prepared the replacement for Template:Alsace infobox at Template talk:Alsace infobox. Is there anything missing? (I agree, I could have prepared that before, please excuse) -- User:Docu
Delete, as they stand right now Alsace infobox is unneeded specialization. All you have to do is add the links to the files into the french region template and it will give you the present Alsace box. gren グレン 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --WikiFan04^{Talk 20:16, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
Comment on the surface this would look like a single use template. Is it likely to be included in more then one article? Vegaswikian 01:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del, single use template. Also I agree with Grenavitar.--MarSch 16:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Switzerland infobox

Unused. Redundant with Template:Infobox Country used on Switzerland. -- User:Docu

Template:Liechtenstein infobox

Unused. Redundant with Template:Infobox Country used on Liechtenstein. -- User:Docu

Comment. Aren't there several other articles on cities with similar templates? — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOAL

A misspelling of the Template:FAOL (Featured Articles in Other Languages) (see Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages. CG 09:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template:U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

Delete - I transferred them all to Template:Succession box and added the categories in a normal form. No need to have a specialized template for it. I'd like to thank the creator of this for all of his efforts though. gren グレン 08:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Democracy

It does not appear to be used anywhere from Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Democracy, and it is blank. --Mysidia 03:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Baron Larf 15:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

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 fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

(none at this time)

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.

(none at this time)

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

(none at this time)

Listings

Template:Sfd-current

Adding a listing

Please put new listings under today's date (May 22) at the top of the section.
When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

August 16

Template:Cuba infobox

Delete: The one main namespace page that used it Cuba has been modified to to use Template:Infobox Country instead. Caerwine 16:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American

Delete: In addition to not being a Soap Box, Wikipedia is also not dark blue. This unused template is a waste of space for an enyclopedia. Hipocrite 14:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keepIf you're biggest problem with the template, is the color of the template, then change the color, don't nominate it for deletion--I-2-d2 15:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to the personal namespace of the user to use this template. Halibu tt 16:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sisterproject

A previous edit war seems to have determined that this meta-template is harmful. It was then blanked, which is how I noticed it. I checked through the using pages and I believe I have now converted them all to use the appropriate one from Wikipedia:Sister projects, so this can be deleted. -- Beland 02:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then. A series of sister templates custom-tailored by article is better than this one, which basically asserts that the article has useful related content in each sisterproject (which is rare at best). R adiant _>|< 10:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. This one's a tough call. It's been on TFD twice before (1, 2), and kept both times. However, much of the discussion on this template's talk page seems to indicate a legitimate concern about the use of meta-templates and the effect on the server. The best option would likely be to subst: the old version into the templates it uses (which appears to have been done already), and to delete it. Again, however, tough call. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zelda series and Template:Mario series

Why do we need these when we have categories? They're huge and useless. Andre (talk) 04:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Easy access to Zelda and Mario games. There. -- A Link to the Past 04:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Corvun 06:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful navigational template, Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change that godawful color!--Kross 07:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but might I suggest that they are somewhat overly large? Using abbreviations may help, rather than repeating the phrase "super mario world" five times. R adiant _>|< 08:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful navigational template. It goes at the bottom of the article, so it's not like it's getting in the way of anything important. Nohat 08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categories can't be organized like these navigational templates can. BlankVerse ∅ 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I've changed the colors to something hopefully less garish. Coffee 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the colors are boring now, but there's no good reason to get rid of the template.Rhindle The Red 18:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

{{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}

Mentioned below in the discussion on {{Seemain}}, it seems prudent to separate the discussions since people probably have different opinions here. Delete these, there are overly many of them and they're not very pointful. R adiant _>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete reasons from earlier discussions. Vegaswikian 22:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below: they're useful. I feel more strongly about 2 to 4 than the rest though. Septentrionalis 19:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

Template:Fantasy

A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on. DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nom) DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its "value" are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete. --Corvun 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep useful. Improve rather than destruct. The JPS 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify. It's a good idea but it's far too big and unwieldy. I'd like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: That's pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template's talk page or the fantasy talk page. --Corvun 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The "fantasy authors" and "list of fantasy authors" should be dropped to just "fantasy authors" and that promoted up one level so it remains. Courtland 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I've divided the template into "articles" and "categories", with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%.
Keep and correct if needed. Halibu tt 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Seemain and Template:SeeMain

Note: Voting suspended. This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through "What links here". The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted.

Delete: Redirected in earlier TfD, has now been orphaned except for some Talk and User pages. SEWilco 01:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stbalbach 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template:main, or even better, template:see details is enough I think. This one seems to imply some kind of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the definition of Template:main was changed today. Template_talk:Main#Template_usage_changed SEWilco 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Note that this change was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator's original intention and the tag's overwhelmingly popular application. —Lifeisunfair 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking for {{seemain}} when they mean {{main}} and it is too much trouble with very little benefit to try and cure everyone of this confusion. Dragons flight 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Despite the nominator's claim to the contrary, {{seemain}} had not been orphaned. I just removed it from nineteen articles, many of which are extremely prominent: Creationism, Final Fantasy airships, Gautama Buddha, Germany, Homosexuality, Human, Kashmir, The Legend of Zelda series enemies, Malaysia, Napoleon I of France, National Basketball Association, New Zealand, Portland, Oregon, Races of Final Fantasy, Slavery, Tutankhamun, United States, Wikipedia and WWE SmackDown! (video game). —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of those articles appear in Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Seemain, which is only showing discussion and User pages that the bot ignored. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

As stated above, I removed the template from all nineteen of those articles. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect Whatlinkshere entries for a redirected template are created in the target template, thus Whatlinkshere:main probably contains some seemain references. The TfD vote can continue, this problem merely means that all cleanup deletions of redirected templates have to deal with such technical issues. (SEWilco 19:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Last night, when the nineteen articles in question were listed on the "Whatlinkshere" page, {{seemain}} was not a redirect; it contained the TfD notice. As Radiant indicated, three of the titles (Germany, Human and New Zealand) appeared when users made unrelated edits to the corresponding articles (after I first viewed the "Whatlinkshere" page and began removing the template). —Lifeisunfair 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. A Redirect page does not allow the TfD template, so the apparently-orphaned redirect was replaced with the TfD template. When I reported the templates were orphans those articles were not in Whatlinkshere:Seemain, and appeared when edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Along the way, I discovered the existence of ten additional templates that belong to this set: {{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}. —Lifeisunfair 06:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, articles containing {{seemain}} continue to appear on the list (without anyone adding the template). For the time being (until this problem has been resolved), I've restored the redirect. (And if you really stop to think about it, a TfD message in an orphaned template serves little purpose.) —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What "list"? (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I was referring to this list. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The articles which showed in Whatlinksher:Seemain were those which were edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete those extra templates #2-#20; where did those come from anyway? As for the first one, I have no objection to the redirect. Templates sometimes get a longer 'whatlinkshere' when articles containing them are 'touched', so for an oft-used template it's not necessarily possible to find all links to it. Try using google as an alternate method.

R adiant _>|< 08:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The extra templates 2-20 are for multiple references, and will be converted later thus are not part of this TfD. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

As noted below, the numbered templates (excepting {{seemain2}}) are extraneous. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {seemain} and at least 2 through 4 of the others. Useful, and easier to maintain than typing in the same italicized sentence all the time. Septentrionalis 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect {{seemain}} and {{seeMain}} to {{main}}; redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}}; delete all of the other numbered templates (which are extraneous, because {{main2}} can link to any plural quantity of articles). —Lifeisunfair 17:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect everything including {{see details}} to {{main}}. Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{main2}} (I think it was easier to put this vote as an entry given the number of templates being discussed here, I am not voting twice.) Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The JPS 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

Template:Chem-cat

Delete: A convenient and systematic way to crowd the article namespace with suggestions for editors, which (last I checked) were deprecated. Also, if you're going to add this template to a page, you might as well just fulfill the suggestion and skip the extra step. --Smack (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the above. - SimonP 15:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Might be reasonable if placed on a talk page. Presumably should be placed only by an editor who is not sure what the proepr subcat is. weak keep if restricted to talk pages and properly documented. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only if the template is moved from every article it is currently on to the articles' talk pages. If not moved, then delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is used at the bottom of the article, onobtrusively. The chemistry category now has 172 articles. If I knew the appropriate subcategory for these articles, I would go ahead and take care of it myself. The category has had the "cleancat" tag, on its talk page, since May 1. Maurreen (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a good idea but it's better taken from the category (and WikiProject:chemistry) than by sticking a template on each related article and asking 'can someone else please help'. R adiant _>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: It's just in the way and superfluous. ~K 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: For the sake of curiosity, how does this template have less value or make any more of a problem than, for example, the stub or wikifacation templates, when those needs are evident in the articles? And for the sake of efficiency, can anyone suggest a more effective method to accomplish the same thing, especially for those categories without a project? For example, Category:Computing got Template:Cleancat on 22 June. I requested help with Category:Computing at Talk:Computing on 27 July. The main cat still has more than 150 articles. Maurreen (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your time would probably be better spent recategorizing than slapping a template on each article. I don't really believe there is such a thing as overpopulation of a category. And if someone doesn't know where to categorize an article, we would want them to put it in a general category so that someone more knowledgable could come along and recategorize it properly. —Mike 02:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think putting a template on the category would be useful (e.g. "this category is getting too large, please move items to its subcats"). Cleaner-uppers could more easily work from there. R adiant _>|< 13:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

comment: 150 articles ... that is certainly not an example of overpopulation of a category in my opinion. On the other hand, 1,500 would present more of a problem. Courtland 01:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It usually requires significant expertise in a subject to expand a stub, and it can take a lot of work to wikify an article. IMHO, fussing with categories is fairly quick and requires only superficial knowledge. What we need is a tag placed in the category page that marks it as too large. --Smack (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to generalize this to accept a parameter to the category. Or perhaps simply a template which says: This article is not categorized specifically enough. Or perhaps not. As with article text, people will come along and fix this. Eventually. --MarSch 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too specific, but I strongly encourage the generalization of this to a talk page located, {{cleanup-subcat}} tag. Hope that helps. JesseW 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too specific. Not very useful. -- Reinyday, 15 August 2005
Delete. The template {{verylarge}} should be used as a general solution; this template places the category into the "cleanup" cateogory Category:Overpopulated categories. Courtland 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Areas of Edinburgh

Delete: Offers no extra navigational function than the existing identical category. The majority are red links, and is often bigger than the articles themselves (i.e. Murrayfield). It attracts the creation of substandard articles to turn the red links into blue (I've cleaned up New Town, Edinburgh, but it's still weak). The JPS 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listify: to be precise, substitute the present list into Areas of Edinburgh; convert the template into a link to that article and to the category; add the category to the template. This will be easier to navigate than a bald category, which is uncoubtedly why the template exists at all. Septentrionalis 15:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, that is what the page Areas of Edinburgh used to be. See this revision. Is that really better? Maccoinnich 22:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - Is there any way to divide the list into sections? The JPS 22:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean, use the {subst:Areas of Edinburgh) there; which will keep the present appearance; as I have just done. You don't need a template to have a pretty appearance; you just need the code. Septentrionalis 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is useful to have on each page. If anything, I think the page Areas of Edinburgh should be deleted, just leaving the template. The fact that there isn't a perfect article from each link is hardly a reason to delete the template. Maccoinnich 19:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Listify. R adiant _>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Listify per Septentrionalis. -Splash 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

Template:Green; Template:Red; Template:Blue

I have no idea how many other of these there are, but I have just noticed them cropping up in WP:FAC and other places. I think they are as bad as {{object}} and its ilk, which were deleted a few months ago. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ugly, confusing, don't work right delete Mozzerati 19:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- keep.What is your evidence that green and red and blue don't work right other than the {tfd}, which will go away again? Septentrionalis 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'f your suggesting deletion, please don't give a worthless reason. Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've said it before, and I fully expect to say it again. TFD is not, at least in my opinion, a way to go about regulating user behavior. If you are offended by colored doodads, then write a style guideline on voting and get consensus approval for it. However, right now there is nothing wrong with these templates and if someone wants to pretty up user or talk space, I know of no consensus saying it is forbidden. While we are at it, I noticed that {{Red}} has actually been used in a number of drug-related articles to create red warning tags. Dragons flight 20:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I have created {{tfd-inline}} for the purposes of having a TFD template that can fit into the flow of text without breaking it into multiple lines. Obviously you can see the effect of this on the red, green, and blue mentions by Septentrionalis above. Dragons flight 20:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks Septentrionalis 15:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless. Grue 20:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not as bad as the other ones we deleted because comments were made that the images increased load times, that argument can't be made here. Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful. ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tfd-inlineKeep, great fun. Flowerparty ^talk 02:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oh do come along. Dunc|☺ 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's kinda handy in using the formatting. --Amr Hassan 13:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful for those who find them useful. For those who don't, well forget about them. They're doing no harm. The JPS 16:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I agree with Dragons flight. ALoan should have initiated a discussion regarding the behavior to which he/she objects, instead of attempting to eliminate the legitimate means by which said behavior is accomplished. —Lifeisunfair 16:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst overuse of color is bad there are legitimate uses for it and having to write html for it is a pita. Plugwash 22:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and subst, per Plugwash. If the user is expecting one use for it, they don't want it changing in the future. It is potentially useful for the non-HTML fluent among us. I won't use it, but I have no objection to others using it properly (i.e. in relevant situations and with subst:, as the template call is unnecessary). [[smoddy]] 23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment using subst on templates like this is a double edged sword, on the one hand it reduces server load slightly (yes i know netoholic has been crusading against templates on the basis of a very vauge comment by jamesday but when i actually tried to speak to jamesday about the issue he seemed to ignore my questions as if it wasn't all that significant after all). However subst also dumps the html from the template into the wikitext making it harder to follow. Plugwash 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, I never thought I'd be defending Netoholic. Please read WP:AUM - Jamesday is likely not answering you because he has lots of things on his hands, and it's been debated to death already. This issue is very real. R adiant _>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
del, how lazy can you get? Besides if someone uses a template like this you have to look it up to see what it does, while a simple font-tag is much clearer and cleaner. When programming you also don't make functions for every tidbit, then also don't make a template for every trivial task. It's just stupid. You need only see the font version once to know how it works and if not just keep a copy on your user page. Hey Radiant, don't defend Netoholic and not vote. Defend AND vote. --MarSch 17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's less typing, and the meaning is obvious once you look at the page (not the wikitext). ~~ N (t/c) 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shouldn't be colouring text, and definitely not with the font tag. ed g2s • talk 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sexual_orientation

I propose deletion for several reasons: One is that this is a topic that, if not seen as inherently POV, at least attracts many POV-warriors. Furthermore, there is no need for this article series box; the subject is hard to reduce to a few articles, and bound to invite heated debates over what should and should not be included. Right now the articles are quite randomly choosen, and that is the improved version -- in the initial one, transgender was listed as a sexual orientation, and the debate on the talk page did not leave the impression that the maker of said template was much willing to discuss that obvious mistake. This is not the first attempt to do an ASB on this (or closely related) topics; see Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed) for a discussion of a previous attempt. Much of the criticism applies here, too. -- AlexR 13:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - information better served by categories than a template. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 13:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few lists regarding this and similar topics if one wishes for a more ordered reading guide. -- AlexR 13:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a useful navigational tool and provides a fairly compact organization to much of the relevant knowledge. If important things are missing they should be added and organization improved, not just delete the whole thing. AlexR, most of your argument seems to boil down to "I don't want to fight about what goes in this template", which is not a good reason to delete it. Certainly you wouldn't make the argument that we should delete the article on homosexuality just cause people will fight over it? Of course there will be disagreements in this area of Wikipedia, can't be helped, but no one is forcing you to participate. Disclaimer: After this was listed for deletion, I editted it to make it less huge and slightly more readible. Dragons flight 14:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- You are misreading my arguments - the "what goes in it" is just one part of the problem; and unlike an article the real estate space in an ASB is very limited. -- AlexR 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I reread your statement including references to "POV-warriors", "heated debate" and what you perceive as a failed discussion on transgender. Forgive me, but I still get the impression that you are complaining primarily about the difficulty in getting people to agree. If you have another argument, could you please try making it a little clearer for me? Also, how many articles do you think it needs? There are already 31 links there. Adding a few more wouldn't hurt, or it could be condensed by linking to list pages covering the appropriate topic, rather than all the pages individually. Still I don't see deletion as an appropriate solution to what I percieve as a content dispute. Dragons flight 18:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    - As I already said, I think the very format of an article series box is unsuitable for this subject - and I linked to a page going into more detail already. Subjects as complex as this one are, in my opinon, much better served by lists and categories; hence, no such ASB is the solution of my choice. (And as can be seen from the article linked above, that is not exactly a position I've only held since yesterday.) And of course the fact that it is an extremely controversial subject does not help, either. Those, however, are two arguments, not one. As for "how many" - that is a pretty irrelevant question. It is which ones go into that are the problem, not how many. Should - for example - such an ASB try to go from "homosexual and heterosexual", or from "gay and lesbian", or maybe from "androphilia and gynophilia"? Cases can be made for all three apporaches, but if they were put into one ASB that think would drown the article. OTOH, if one approach is choosen, it would be entirely appropriate, and from some points of view even necessary, to make a box for the other two approaches. Not a desireable idea, if you ask me. -- AlexR 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for further discussion. I only created it 4 days ago, and I think the principle of a seriesbox is a useful one. It complements, rather than replaces, categories, because it highlights the major articles of the topic. Obviously there will be disagreement about what they are, and maybe about what the topic is, which will be handled in the usual Wikipedia way. (I'm mystified by AlexR's comment about my not being willing to discuss the inclusion of transgender; I'd said 3 days ago "Let's see if there are any more comments".) Rd232 15:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are? That link very obviously did not belong there, so what was there to wait about? Nevertheless, I, like you (hopefully), waited, and nothing came. So I removed the entry, but actually, this does not make this ASB any more useful. -- AlexR 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the intentions of the creator, it's bound to end up being used for POV pushing, jguk 17:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Categorify and~~ Delete, doesn't have a linear series to it per WP:CSL. -Splash 19:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Although WP:CSL is of unclear status, this does not prevent it being used as a reason for a vote. I think that this particular point from CSL is a good one, so my vote stands. -Splash 17:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify and delete. The inherent POV attraction of this template can be seen already. Here's a question that will be among the first things that's going to attract POV-warriors and trolling: "Why pink?" Tomer ^TALK 19:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Category:Sexual orientation already exists. -- AlexR 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As does Category:LGBT. The relationship is far from clear. Rd232 09:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I like the idea but doesn't fit the rules on WP:CSL. Changed to no vote because of below comment. We do, after all, have {{Jew}} and similar. ~~ N (t/c) 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is WP:CSL, Really? I have never heard mention of WP:CSL before, which is more than a little odd given the number of navigational templates that come through here. There is no tag for {proposed}, {guideline}, {policy}, etc. Further there are abundant examples of navigational templates which wouldn't meet the strict linear series rule. Based on this discussion, it would in fact appear there is little consensus for that part of the guideline anyway. I am going to bring this issue up at the Village Pump. Dragons flight 00:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- My comments at the pump are here. Dragons flight 01:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Rename ? I don't really know how to do this voting thing. But my vote would be that this is worthy of being kept, but should be renamed to something like 'sexuality' or 'sexual orientation issues'. Because it isn't really about sexual orientation, is it? It's about sexual orientation as it relates to politics and society. If this were about sexual orientation it would contain stuff like "lgpt performers" or "strapons" and stuff. Also, it might make more sense to make this be a separate category page type thing instead of a box that's always hanging there. Awk 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea but should be discussed in a more central place. R adiant _>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 00:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you do keep this, change the color scheme to something other than pink. To me as a homosexual male that just seems so... stereotypical. :P Espantajo 00:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the pink came from the marketing template it was derived from. I don't mind what colour it is! Rd232 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bad title and as a result suboptimal cohesion between included articles. Keep, since those are not reasons for deletion as long as it is used. --MarSch 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well used and links to various related topics in just the same way that Template:Christianity does, for example. I don't see any reason to delete it. — OwenBlacker 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per OwenBlacker. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename. I generally prefer series boxes above categories, but this one isn't about sexual orientation. It's about homosexuality, with a few token "where does orientation come from" links thrown in, and a link to heterosexuality second to homosexuality. At the very least it should be renamed Template:Homosexuality. It shouldn't exist in its current form at its current location. It could, however, be useful if retooled or shortened. But if it's shortened enough, maybe a category is better, even though I don't like categories. --Golbez 08:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, I wasn't sure what the focus of it should be - "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality". I still don't. Rd232 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment: I don't see a reason for this being deleted? The two given in the nomination text are that it is and/or will attract 'POV warriors' but I do not see that we should be forced to delete anything for that reason, else a whole myriad of other articles should be nominated too, the second reason given was that there are too many potential articles which should and/or could be included, are there any which are actually missing from the template which anyone feels should go in? (or visa-versa?) finally the third reason is that a category is more suited to the job, I don't think this is the case personally, I think ASBs allow the main topics to be navigated to much easier. -- Joolz 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:32, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Template:Npov-intro/Template:POV-intro

This is completely unused and should probably be deleted. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, brilliant, this is just the template for the creation science article (and I'm sure a few others). The article itself is usually fine, as critism and supporting arguments have their own sections, but the intro has been causing a lot of problems. Is this template documented? -- Ec5618 11:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect both to Template:POV-section. Good idea but redundant. R adiant _>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep' - and use more widely. The intro is often the most contentious section, and a template that makes that crystal clear is very useful. The "section" version is not clear enough, IMO, when used to refer to an intro (people may not be clear about what it's referring to). Rd232 13:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and list on Wikipedia:Templates. Is there also an in-line version of {npov}; like {dubious} is of {accuracy}? Septentrionalis 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it exists, that would be Template:POV-section like I said above. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - No - put dubious and Pov-section in a page - you'll see the difference. The former is inline, the latter is not - it floats above the line. Rd232 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del per Radiant --MarSch 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shh

Delete: Looks like a vanity/advert link to a movie site. Jpers36 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I don't know what you're talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer? why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it's not like it's mine, or that I'm making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they're almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. --Amr Hassan 07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the "external links" section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don't see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok.. count how many articles it's used in .. what are templates for anyway? and what harm is it doing right now?--Amr Hassan 08:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia's purpose is not to advertise other websites. R adiant _>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This looks very similer to {{imdb title}} (t/l) or {{isfdb name}} (t/l) to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different? DES ^(talk) 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link. DES ^(talk) 12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. It's not very useful and does seem to be vanity.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per DES. Carioca 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think it's useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.--DizerX 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, per DES --MarSch 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

Template:New Template

Currently blank. Looks like some sort of test template. Exabyte (talk) 03:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It was a test template. The first revision said test. -Hyad 04:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy. WP:CSD, general #1 & #2. Dragons flight 04:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Uncyclopedia link

Delete: I don't think we should be linking to Uncyclopedia. — Itai (f&t) 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We allready voted to delete an Uncylopedia template just a few weeks ago. Stbalbach 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is nearly identical to the deleted history of Template:Uncyclopedia, which underwent a TFD here. I've orphaned and tagged it. —Cryptic (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Las Vegas casinos

Delete : See Talk Page for template. Short version: Suggest using List of greater Las Vegas resorts. – …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 08:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The author responded to questions about the template on the talk page by removing all text from the template. It was not clear what purpose it was intended to serve. Since it is empty, there is probably no reason to keep it. Vegaswikian 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

Template:Otherusesabout

Worrying new template that ecourages repetition of opening paragraph above it for disambiguation. Template:Otheruses is already the standard way to provide a disambiguation link. ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (By which I mean bot all uses to Template:Otheruses, then delete.) ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That being voted, I'll say that "worrying" is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air. Courtland 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Note the (nearly) identical template, {{otheruses1}}. Coincidentally, a template named {{otheruses1}} was deleted per TFD consensus in December 2004 --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3 to 1 is not exactly "consensus", or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. —Lowellian (talk) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Let's reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the "old" template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn't make any difference. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundancy stinks. -- jiy^Talk 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Redundancy is sometimes necessary. --DuKot 01:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with {{otheruses1}}. CG 09:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu

Template:Otheruses1 is now orphaned. I propose we delete this too as it is pretty much identical (unless anyone thinks we need to vote separately?). ed g2s • talk 14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they're practically identical. Anyone who's voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don't need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up.

Delete redundant. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why people want to delete this. It's not identical to Template:Otheruses, so it's not redundant, right? —Lowellian (talk) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep overdeletionism is a pain in the arse, redirectionism is better. Dunc|☺ 13:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provides context not given by Template:Otheruses. -Sean Curtin 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's the wrong way to do disambiguation. Context is given by the first line/paragraph of the article. ed g2s • talk 08:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu
Delete redundant with introductory paragraph. JesseW 06:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James F. (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV Network

Ddespie@san.rr.com put {{tfd}} on this but maybe forgot to add to this page, but I agree with the deletion and will put it up. Provides an infobox for TV Networks with the network's logo and some information that doesn't seem very useful or specific for an 'at-a-glance' reference. -Kwh 02:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not helpful, nothing really that can be done with this template that can't be better done with categories. -Kwh 02:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This template appears to be a sloppily written infobox, so Cleanup and Move to an infobox template, if such does not already exist. Otherwise, simply delete.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it were expanded and cleaned up maybe, but delete otherwise.
✮ Fredo (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delete. I've already created a separate template - template:Infobox Network - which I've applied to some of the networks where the template in question previously appeared. Stickguy 03:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

Template:Jo_Mango

Delete: self-indulgent band template. The band itself manages 358 google hits and they haven't relesased any records yet. Flowerparty ^talk 18:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only used on one article, as well. --Baron Larf 01:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, not useful. Perhaps keeping it in talk and seing if the thingie develops would be a decent idea. Halibu tt 13:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Halibutt --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity spilling over into template space! Aargh! -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ccm

Template was suggested 17 July but no interest/response to develop and not adequate as is - based on music genre template Paul foord 14:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks good to me; if it needs to develop, let's develop it, not delete it. --Baron Larf 01:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and develop - as per what Baron Larf said. Halibu tt 13:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid infobox type thingy, needs development. Alphax ^τεχ 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - excellent template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if noone expressed any interest in using it, why have it hanging around? In the end, it will just be replaced by a redesign if someone wants such an infobox and the signs would seem to be that they don't. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now being used Paul foord 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, used --MarSch 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adultswim

{{Adultswim}} produces [adult swim]. Need I say more? —Cryptic (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Eh, I made it to reflect the way they write their name. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:11, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
Delete. Well intentioned, but per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), we don't stylize names in this way. Dragons flight 14:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per Dragons flight --Baron Larf 01:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As mentioned we shouldn't be using the brackets. ed g2s • talk 15:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del --MarSch 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SoftwareProduct

An unnecessary fork of Template:Infobox Software. --minghong 06:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del, unused --MarSch 16:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football in Portugal

Overkill template, with two other templates included (which are of value individually) and a list of seasons, with only one article done. Large, bulky and next to useless, as if needed, the two templates can be placed seperately and the list of seasons converted into a wikilink of template:Football in Portugal table cells, which I've struggled earlier to make barely usable. After FiP is deleted, the "table cells" template could have that part of the name removed, and used for division and federation articles ^wS;✉ 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too heavy handed for its purpose. With that purpose only really being one article, it could just be subst:ed. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep --MarSch 16:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FFVI Places

A template once used to easily access the different articles covering Final Fantasy VI locations, but there is already an article called List of Final Fantasy VI locations which regroups all locations of Final Fantasy VI. It is now unused and unneeded as far as I can see, but I will still place an announcement about it at the Wikiproject Final Fantasy's discussion page in case someone would oppose. – DarkEvil 05:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Delete --ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --*drew 12:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flowerparty ^talk 22:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have List of Final Fantasy VI locations already. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — WARPEDmirror 02:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at my name; I think I should know FFcruft when I see it. Footer boxes are for very similar things; countries in a region, states in a country; governors of a state. Being two locations in a video game doesn't quite fit the criteria, especially since there will be little interest in horizontal research. --Golbez 08:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

August 8

Template:Block

Created in the middle of an admin war, way too agressive, redundant with {{test5}}. Delete. --cesarb 03:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can tone it down. I think it's a good idea, keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could with the wording (which was initially a little inapropriate), but I still see it as a bit useless. If anything needs more explanation than test5 can provide (ie, cite specific policies), then it's clear we would need a personalized, custom message that can actually provide details, not just slap on this template. Dmcdevit·t 04:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Copying my own comment from WP:AN/I:
I, however, sent it to TFD. Way too flashy, and the "note to sysops" is just dumb — administrators are supposed to know that rule (and a lot of others) already. We didn't waste hours of our life pouring over the administrator's reading list after (or even before) we got the sysop flag for nothing. --cesarb 04:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a templated "you have been blocked" message, while convienient, encourages admins to take blocking too lightly. If you're going to block someone, you should at least have the inconvienience of having to compose an explanation to put on the user's talk page. --05:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with the above. R adiant _>|< 10:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There's just one fly in the ointment: admins don't necessarily feel pressure to inconvenience themselves without such a message. After all, can't people read the block log? </sarcasm> JRM · Talk 10:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, fugly, feature creep. Dan100 (Talk) 22:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary. Flowerparty ^talk 21:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per everything above. Shem^(talk) 06:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yuk. -Splash 19:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or Move to {{obnoxious msg}}. Tomer ^TALK 19:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:SI electricity units and Template:SI magnetism units

A noble idea, but empty and unused. Agentsoo 10:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think, and populate. It is indeed a noble idea that is not superceded by a cat or a list. I presume we have articles on all the SI units, so templateboxing them seems like a good idea. If this is kept, I might even do it myself if the closing admin gives me a prod. -Splash 19:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del, blank templates = unuseful --MarSch 16:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Confederate States infobox

Delete. Nothing links to it except a General namespace redirect, and Wikipedia:List of blank pages. As far as I can tell, nothing ever came of using this template, or placing it on former Confederate states' pages ran against community consensus. ral315 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete blank template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was rejected by the states over which it has "jurisdiction", then it's not usable at all. --Titoxd 20:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CurrentCSBCOTW

Delete. Template for the former Wikipedia:CSB Collaboration of the Week, which was dissolved nearly five months ago. ral315 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

August 7

Template:OriginalResearch (and Category:Original research disputes)

"The novelty of research or terms used in this article is disputed." This is a rather obscure (and mostly unused) form of dispute resolution, and we already have far too many confusing variations on {{disputed}}. R adiant _>|< 08:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly appropriate way to identify cases of alleged original research. Also I don't see how it's a form of dispute resolution, since it simply directs users to the talk page. Thus, unless it actually does overlap with another template, keep. -- Visviva 13:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The real objection is that it duplicates Template:original research, which is more clearly phrased, and is named more in template style; compare {cfd} which is lower case throughout. But if someone wants to call it OriginalResearch, I have no problem with that. Septentrionalis 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This one is too wordy and confusing. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:original research; there is too much in here that is said more clearly elsewhere.-Splash 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

Template:US Trade Representative

Delete, Unneeded overspecialization of Template:Succession box. I have converted everything that used it so succession box so it is completely uneeded. gren グレン 20:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del, unused--MarSch 16:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MP3Search.Ru

Delete. Unused, currently blank. Created by Mike garcia, never correctly debugged, as far as I can see. From November 2004. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Delete. If you go into the page history, you can see that it was only a test (sandbox) template created by Mike Garcia. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The West Wing (TV)

Delete. Unused. Currently blank. Has been replaced in article with a table. No likelihood of ongoing use. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Delete. Blanked by Xinoph an hour after he created it. --Baron Larf 20:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Alsace infobox

Redundant with Template:Infobox French Région that could be used on Alsace instead. For a discussion see also WikiProject French régions. -- User:Docu

The template Template:Infobox French Région was used for only 3 of the 26 régions of France, whereas the other 23 régions have each a specific infobox which is more detailed and better laid out than the generic Template:Infobox French Région, so I am puting specific infoboxes for the three remaining régions. It's better to have specific infoboxes for each région rather than a generic infobox for all the régions because each région has its own peculiarities, and one generic infobox cannot do the job (some régions need footnotes, some don't, some régions are made up of several départements, while some régions are monodepartmental, etc.). Hardouin 15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-This infobox is much better laid out then Template:Infobox French Région and it is also much more detailed. If Template:Infobox French Région really is only used on three articles, I think IT should be up for deletion. Sometimes, people here try too hard to standardize things and over-standardization (is that a word?) can sometimes lead to decreased quality, as is shown with Template:Infobox French Région IMO. --Gpyoung ^talk 16:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't all Regions used to use Template:Infobox French Région? It is fairly easy to add additional fields to the infobox. If an infobox can be made for all countries it should be easy for French regions.-- User:Docu
Like Gpyoung rightly said, sometimes people try too hard to standardize things, for no real reason. Individual infoboxes take more time to design in the first place, but then they are much more flexible in use than a generic infobox. Besides, I would like to point out that the infoboxes for French régions were all designed with the same format, so if you check several French régions, you'll have the impression the infobox is a unique standardized infobox, whereas in fact it is specific to each région. So we get both the benefit of standardization (uniform format) and the benefit of specific infoboxes (flexibility). Hardouin 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prepared the replacement for Template:Alsace infobox at Template talk:Alsace infobox. Is there anything missing? (I agree, I could have prepared that before, please excuse) -- User:Docu
Delete, as they stand right now Alsace infobox is unneeded specialization. All you have to do is add the links to the files into the french region template and it will give you the present Alsace box. gren グレン 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --WikiFan04^{Talk 20:16, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
Comment on the surface this would look like a single use template. Is it likely to be included in more then one article? Vegaswikian 01:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del, single use template. Also I agree with Grenavitar.--MarSch 16:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Switzerland infobox

Unused. Redundant with Template:Infobox Country used on Switzerland. -- User:Docu

Template:Liechtenstein infobox

Unused. Redundant with Template:Infobox Country used on Liechtenstein. -- User:Docu

Comment. Aren't there several other articles on cities with similar templates? — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOAL

A misspelling of the Template:FAOL (Featured Articles in Other Languages) (see Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages. CG 09:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template:U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

Delete - I transferred them all to Template:Succession box and added the categories in a normal form. No need to have a specialized template for it. I'd like to thank the creator of this for all of his efforts though. gren グレン 08:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Democracy

It does not appear to be used anywhere from Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Democracy, and it is blank. --Mysidia 03:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Baron Larf 15:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

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 fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

(none at this time)

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.

(none at this time)

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

(none at this time)

@@ Line 170: / Line 170: @@
 * '''Delete or Rename'''. I generally prefer series boxes above categories, but this one isn't about sexual orientation. It's about homosexuality, with a few token "where does orientation come from" links thrown in, and a link to heterosexuality second to homosexuality. At the very least it should be renamed Template:Homosexuality. It shouldn't exist in its current form at its current location. It could, however, be useful if retooled or shortened. But if it's shortened enough, maybe a category is better, even though I don't like categories. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 08:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 ::As noted on the talk page, I wasn't sure what the focus of it should be - "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality". I still don't. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
-* Comment: I don't see a reason for this being deleted? The two given in the nomination text are that it is and/or will attract 'POV warriors' but I do not see that we should be forced to delete anything for that reason, else a whole myriad of other articles should be nominated too, the second reason given was that there are too many potential articles which should and/or could be included, are there any which are actually missing from the template which anyone feels should go in? (or visa-versa?) finally the third reason is that a category is more suited to the job, I don't think this is the case personally, I think ASBs allow the main topics to be navigated to much easier. -- [[User:Joolz|Joolz]] 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' Comment: I don't see a reason for this being deleted? The two given in the nomination text are that it is and/or will attract 'POV warriors' but I do not see that we should be forced to delete anything for that reason, else a whole myriad of other articles should be nominated too, the second reason given was that there are too many potential articles which should and/or could be included, are there any which are actually missing from the template which anyone feels should go in? (or visa-versa?) finally the third reason is that a category is more suited to the job, I don't think this is the case personally, I think ASBs allow the main topics to be navigated to much easier. -- [[User:Joolz|Joolz]] 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 19:32, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:Npov-intro]]/[[Template:POV-intro]] ====