Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Please vote on this proposal on whether TfD should also deal with templates in other namespaces. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listings

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

Please vote on this proposal on whether TfD should also deal with templates in other namespaces. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Proposal

April 13

Template:Commonwealth Games Associations at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

Per WP:WIN a crystal ball. Related articles are currently on VfD for the same reason. Radiant_* 12:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Dr_Zen/keepschools

This vote is closed, as WP:TFD is for only items in the Template namespace, per the instructions. -- Netoholic @ 14:27, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Template:Kpop

A template with the title "Popular K-pop artists"? This should be a category, not a template. Otherwise, the template will continue to grow indefinitely. Furthermore, "popular" is bad word-choice; presumably, if they're not popular, they wouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. —Lowellian (talk) 07:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above reasoning. —Lowellian (talk) 07:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if it gets too big, it can be restricted to "most popular" artists. Kappa 12:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with category:K-pop artists, agree with Lowellian (wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes should, but doesn't currently, provide clear guidance about this). -- Rick Block 13:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - "Popular" is impossible to judge without criteria. Suggest this is better done as a category, and perhaps as a list of artists with sales or play metrics. -- Netoholic @ 14:31, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Template:Cpop

Orphan, and an article masquerading as a template. Should be merged into C-Pop. —Lowellian (talk) 07:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have merged the userful information. —Lowellian (talk) 08:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above reasoning. —Lowellian (talk) 07:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Rick Block 13:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 12

Template:Alpha

I thought I had listed this already. Just put the list in alphabetical order. --SPUI (talk) 00:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnecessary. (Just like checking the template's history was. Sigh.) —Korath (Talk) 02:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Dleete. This vote should be spellchecked. Rhobite 06:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Abolish. This vote is out of alphabetical order, but then again, who is to say that the establishment's notion of alphabetical ordering is right or even desirable? --iMb~Meow 09:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Magden-geo-stub

and also Template:Apples-geo-stub : unnecessary Templates-they're far too low level for templates, surely? Magden is a village of some 3500 people, and there's only one article, already a Swiss stub. I have also removed them from the country section of Category:Europe geography stubs, so nothing uses them now. -Wikibob | Talk 00:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• We've had a slew of pointless Swiss geo templates lately - including a couple of unneccessary geo-stubs (none of which have made it within a sniff of WP:WSS). D-leet Grutness|^hello? 00:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 'em all. Created by an utterly clueless, non-communicating substub generating person who obviously has no idea of either Swiss geography or when to use which feature of this Wiki. Operates under various IPs, creates tons of poorly formatted and poorly written substubs on Swiss and other municipalities by importing stuff from fr: and other language Wikipedias, complete with image refs, but of course most of these images don't exist on en: or the commons. I've been watching this for at least a month now, but he generates just too many articles for me to clean up. I've tried gently dissuading him, but to no avail. IP's involved include at least 68.250.71.135, 68.252.102.120, 68.79.21.71, 38.115.176.228, 68.79.14.52, 68.79.59.42, and maybe others. I suspect it is Pumpie :-( — check the creator IP of Apples, Vaud. Lupo 06:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 07:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-MNGov

(Hope this is the right area to put this in.) Created this template on very mistaken assumptions and am now asking for it to be deleted. Schissel : bowl listen 04:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You've come to the right place :) Looks like a speedy delete to me. Grutness|^hello? 12:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should retag the affected images at some point as well. If not PD, what's the license on these? grendel|khan 20:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Template:Nn

Another redundant template from our friend User:SamuraiClinton. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this template will reduce all the space taken up on Wikipedia from people nominating articles as "not notable" when they are being nominated for deletion. I want more template like this made (e.g. some people nominate deletion via saying neolgism, lets make a template like that too). --TheSamurai 02:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the user is trying to prove a WP:POINT, but this template is just unnecessary. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope people can write their own votes. Rhobite 02:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, templates use processor cycles, which are more important than space for something simple like this. Also keeps you from voting keep, non-notable. --SPUI (talk) 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not what templates are for. Radiant_* 09:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Copy&Paste and keyboard-macro votes are problematic enough. This is a terrible idea. (Moreover: I don't say that simply because I personally choose to put the rationales before the votes.) People should be encouraged to not vote by rote. Delete. Uncle G 09:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm surprised nobody has changed the template text to read something like, Delete. Article filled with rich, creamy nougat. or Keep. I like bunnies. --Milkmandan 14:09, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost as bad as the pastel boxes. --cesarb 00:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't encourage those who put no thought into their votes.

—Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --iMb~Meow 08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hasid-stub

• Delete: Do we really need this stub if we have the Judaism-related stub of Template:Judaism-stub already? (And remember, we also have the "Jewish history" stub of Template:JewHist-stub, the "Hebrew Bible" stub of Template:HeBible-stub, and of course the "Israel" stub of Template:Israel-stub.) There are NOT enough articles to warrent a new Jewish-articles stub at this time I would think, this will only clutter the field and further splinter the Judaism- and Jewish history- stubs sections. It thus needs to be put on hold for now. It also does not seem to be working from a technical point. See Satmar (Hasidic dynasty). IZAK 07:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary. Grue 07:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Judaism stubs are a big mess already - a look at the caveats and provisos at the top of Category:Israel-related stubs will tell you that. This one hasn't been approved by WP:WSS and just further complicates and already complicated set of stub categories. Grutness|^hello? 12:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Grutness, I take great exception to your critique. The "Judaism" stubs are not "a big mess". There are four of them for good reasons: One for the 3,300+ year-old religion of Judaism; one specifically for Hebrew Bible primary texts; one relating to the modern State of Israel; and one for the vast subject of Jewish history.IZAK 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Judaism-stub and JewHist-stub are enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hyperstubsorting. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listings

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

April 13

Template:Commonwealth Games Associations at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

Per WP:WIN a crystal ball. Related articles are currently on VfD for the same reason. Radiant_* 12:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Dr_Zen/keepschools

This vote is closed, as WP:TFD is for only items in the Template namespace, per the instructions. -- Netoholic @ 14:27, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Template:Kpop

A template with the title "Popular K-pop artists"? This should be a category, not a template. Otherwise, the template will continue to grow indefinitely. Furthermore, "popular" is bad word-choice; presumably, if they're not popular, they wouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. —Lowellian (talk) 07:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above reasoning. —Lowellian (talk) 07:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if it gets too big, it can be restricted to "most popular" artists. Kappa 12:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with category:K-pop artists, agree with Lowellian (wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes should, but doesn't currently, provide clear guidance about this). -- Rick Block 13:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cpop

Orphan, and an article masquerading as a template. Should be merged into C-Pop. —Lowellian (talk) 07:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have merged the userful information. —Lowellian (talk) 08:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above reasoning. —Lowellian (talk) 07:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Rick Block 13:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 12

Template:Alpha

I thought I had listed this already. Just put the list in alphabetical order. --SPUI (talk) 00:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnecessary. (Just like checking the template's history was. Sigh.) —Korath (Talk) 02:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Dleete. This vote should be spellchecked. Rhobite 06:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Abolish. This vote is out of alphabetical order, but then again, who is to say that the establishment's notion of alphabetical ordering is right or even desirable? --iMb~Meow 09:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Magden-geo-stub

and also Template:Apples-geo-stub : unnecessary Templates-they're far too low level for templates, surely? Magden is a village of some 3500 people, and there's only one article, already a Swiss stub. I have also removed them from the country section of Category:Europe geography stubs, so nothing uses them now. -Wikibob | Talk 00:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• We've had a slew of pointless Swiss geo templates lately - including a couple of unneccessary geo-stubs (none of which have made it within a sniff of WP:WSS). D-leet Grutness|^hello? 00:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 'em all. Created by an utterly clueless, non-communicating substub generating person who obviously has no idea of either Swiss geography or when to use which feature of this Wiki. Operates under various IPs, creates tons of poorly formatted and poorly written substubs on Swiss and other municipalities by importing stuff from fr: and other language Wikipedias, complete with image refs, but of course most of these images don't exist on en: or the commons. I've been watching this for at least a month now, but he generates just too many articles for me to clean up. I've tried gently dissuading him, but to no avail. IP's involved include at least 68.250.71.135, 68.252.102.120, 68.79.21.71, 38.115.176.228, 68.79.14.52, 68.79.59.42, and maybe others. I suspect it is Pumpie :-( — check the creator IP of Apples, Vaud. Lupo 06:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 07:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-MNGov

(Hope this is the right area to put this in.) Created this template on very mistaken assumptions and am now asking for it to be deleted. Schissel : bowl listen 04:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You've come to the right place :) Looks like a speedy delete to me. Grutness|^hello? 12:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should retag the affected images at some point as well. If not PD, what's the license on these? grendel|khan 20:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Template:Nn

Another redundant template from our friend User:SamuraiClinton. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this template will reduce all the space taken up on Wikipedia from people nominating articles as "not notable" when they are being nominated for deletion. I want more template like this made (e.g. some people nominate deletion via saying neolgism, lets make a template like that too). --TheSamurai 02:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the user is trying to prove a WP:POINT, but this template is just unnecessary. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope people can write their own votes. Rhobite 02:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, templates use processor cycles, which are more important than space for something simple like this. Also keeps you from voting keep, non-notable. --SPUI (talk) 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not what templates are for. Radiant_* 09:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Copy&Paste and keyboard-macro votes are problematic enough. This is a terrible idea. (Moreover: I don't say that simply because I personally choose to put the rationales before the votes.) People should be encouraged to not vote by rote. Delete. Uncle G 09:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm surprised nobody has changed the template text to read something like, Delete. Article filled with rich, creamy nougat. or Keep. I like bunnies. --Milkmandan 14:09, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost as bad as the pastel boxes. --cesarb 00:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't encourage those who put no thought into their votes.

—Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --iMb~Meow 08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hasid-stub

• Delete: Do we really need this stub if we have the Judaism-related stub of Template:Judaism-stub already? (And remember, we also have the "Jewish history" stub of Template:JewHist-stub, the "Hebrew Bible" stub of Template:HeBible-stub, and of course the "Israel" stub of Template:Israel-stub.) There are NOT enough articles to warrent a new Jewish-articles stub at this time I would think, this will only clutter the field and further splinter the Judaism- and Jewish history- stubs sections. It thus needs to be put on hold for now. It also does not seem to be working from a technical point. See Satmar (Hasidic dynasty). IZAK 07:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary. Grue 07:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Judaism stubs are a big mess already - a look at the caveats and provisos at the top of Category:Israel-related stubs will tell you that. This one hasn't been approved by WP:WSS and just further complicates and already complicated set of stub categories. Grutness|^hello? 12:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Grutness, I take great exception to your critique. The "Judaism" stubs are not "a big mess". There are four of them for good reasons: One for the 3,300+ year-old religion of Judaism; one specifically for Hebrew Bible primary texts; one relating to the modern State of Israel; and one for the vast subject of Jewish history.IZAK 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Judaism-stub and JewHist-stub are enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hyperstubsorting. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 11

Template:Kurdistan/Pictures

This is an ill-conceived template. Even if it were used in more than two articles (it was in Kurdistan and Kurdish people before I subst:ituted it), it would force all those articles to use the same images, with the same captions, in the same order, with the same format. The problems of this arrangement should be obvious, but I'll be glad to explain them if they aren't. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bad use of templates. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An obviously inappropriate use of a template; it's been speedied and recreated twice now. — Davenbelle 00:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment just to clarify, I executed the second speedy deletion, but I realized afterwards that the article should not have been speedy deletion. There is very little given in the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion as to why templates should be speedily deleted. Other than outright nonsense or recreations of previously deleted content, the delete template should NOT be used on templates, they should go to tfd. That being said, my vote below is to delete. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  /* Comment: it's a template/subpage construct – I created the contents of the template; a table wrapped around the images, one of which I uploaded. */ — Davenbelle 06:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Of course --DuKot 02:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate use of templates. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Briangotts 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A template is "reusable text". I want to use the same thing on multiple articles. What difference does it make? Its been deleted lightning fast, I was never told. I can make better use of the template when I can use it. I am not allowed to use it currently. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see: Wikipedia:Template namespace; "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." -- this would apply to the Nato and Star Trek badges, too. — Davenbelle 14:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Toolong

Another User:SamuraiClinton creation, honstly, do we really need this any way, cosidering their is no policy saying as much, just recomendations. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant to Template:Split. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No way we need a boilerplate template for this. If you think an article should split, please say so on the talk page. Article length isn't a hard-and-fast rule, anyway. Rhobite 04:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we have MediaWiki:Longpagewarning for this. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:JB character

An exact copy of Template:James Bond Character for no reason. Orphan as well. K1Bond007 06:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Duplicate --DuKot 19:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a duplicate, but I think that it's much prettier than the other one. Maybe the content can be used in the other template? -Frazzydee|✍ 14:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 10

Template:Marylebone County Cricket Club v Warwickshire County Cricket Club (8-11 April 2005)

Improper use of a Template. This doesn't even seem to be worthy of an article, let alone a Template which is supposed to be used on multiple articles. We should stop the proliferation of Templates which contain text that would normally be used in an article. RickK 07:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

As part of a series of articles on the 2005 English cricket season, I would like the same text to go into three articles: one on the season as a whole, one on the MCC's season and another on Warwickshire's season. If you know a better way of linking one piece of text through to a number of different articles, let me know, jguk 08:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - We've voted this sort of thing down before, every time. There is no solution to replicate prose amongst several articles. Using this method is incredibly confusing for newbies. -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

  I've found a better way of doing what I want to now. I've moved the "template" into the Wikipedia namespace. By organising it like the WP:VfD page, it won't confuse newbies either, jguk 15:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand... it was not that it was a template, it was that the mechanism you're using is inappropriate. This was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/MCC v Warwickshire 8-11 April 2005. I'm going to go subst: it into all the articles using it. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Template namespace says "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." I put that text there because it gets voted out every time when it comes here - David Gerard 00:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• While I strongly agree with David Gerard on this point, I think the policy would benefit from discussions that are less ephemeral and abbreviated than those conducted here. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Template namespace and comment. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Template link

(and multiple redirects)

I'm note sure how this actually saves more than a couple keystrokes, and isn't worth the overhead inherent in redirect/template use. Don't see any room for future changes with it either. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Keep, saves more than "a couple keystrokes". Rather well used. Maybe a bot could go through and subst: them all every once in a while. --SPUI (talk) 04:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Subst doesn't seem to work with this template, alas, or I'd do so religiously. Example: {{subst:Template link|vfd}} -> NaodW29-nowiki291204952c9c7e0200000001vfdNaodW29-nowiki291204952c9c7e0200000002 —Korath (Talk) 07:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Subst has a problem with <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Try it now: {{purge}}. Alphax ^τεχ 16:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would agree, but it seems your definition of "a couple" and mine vary — the actual number is 45 + n, where n is the length of the template name. I find it a very handy convenience. Besides which, it already has a zillion uses embedded in text, all of which are now preceded by two ugly template-for-deletion banners. Can we please get this off this page as soon as possible? Deco 04:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The overhead is much like that of {{article}} or {{user}} (which also get subst:'ed a lot). It's a real pity that subst: doesn't work for it. --cesarb 12:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to {{template}} for uniformity with {{article}} and {{user}}: immensely useful, especially now it has been modofied to be subst-safe. --Phil | Talk 09:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment {{template}} redirects to {{template link}}. – ABCD 20:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Editor time is far more precious than server time, and even if using templates costs the servers some extra processing work (which I don't buy) that cost will go away in a couple years. dbenbenn | talk 13:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Usercomment

This template duplicates {{add}} :

Worse, its wording is more specialized, so its range of applicable use is restricted. In any case, it's been pointed out that most skins have tabs that provide this function, without the chatty comment. — Xiongtalk 03:49, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Delete both -- Netoholic @ 04:37, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is not a duplicate of {{add}}. The "add new comment" link is the only thing these two templates share. {{usercomment}} is not "chatty"; it simply welcomes and asks the user to sign his/her comments, and how to do so. This template is currently used on over 30 user talk pages, including mine (I put a static version up due to the uglification of the tfd tag). That's more than some article series boxes can boast. Why use it? First, it helps keep the talk pages less cluttered in edit mode. Second, not all users are aware of the + tab function; this is especially pertinent to administrators such as myself, due to the high number of messages left by anonymous or otherwise "newbie" users. (Before adopting the template, I frequently had to reshuffle comments into chronological order.) It's a harmless template that serves a purpose. -- Hadal 06:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, serves a signficant purpose. I based my talk header section on it, and if deleted, {{toppostusertalk}} and {{bottompostusertalk}} will need to go too. (If you nominate them for deletion, just because I mentioned them here, you are a heartless troll and I will consider it a personal attack.) Alphax ^τεχ 09:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely support Hadal on this. Please reconsider your proposal, and soon, because the TDT tag on many user pages doesn't look good (I'm trying to be polite). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As said above, it's a commonly used User_talk page decoration. Disclaimer: I'm one of these users. --cesarb 12:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see any good reason for deleting it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given by Hadal. -- FP 23:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

April 9

Template:Czechia-geo-stub/Template:Czech-geo-stub

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

• Delete. Starky 16:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It was, by the way, Starky who applied the speedy message, and has in the last hour been going on a "Czechia"-purging rampage, his first edits ever. —Korath (Talk) 17:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have not been going through a "Czechia-purging rampage", I was just replacing instances the old template with the newer shorter-named template, which doesn't gratuitously use the neologism "Czechia" for the Czech Republic. Starky 17:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not a neologism. Grutness|^hello? 00:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Czechia-geo-stub. "Czechia" is a dubious neologism that should be avoided. NoPuzzleStranger 19:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm adding Template:Czech-geo-stub at this point, at least until this mess is straightened out. At the very least, it's a cut and paste move. —Korath (Talk) 19:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Oops - without knowing about this debate, I've just redirected the (incorrect) Czech-geo-stub to CZechia-geo-stub. There was quite a bit of debate about the naming of this stub before its creation, and it was decided that Czechia was a far more acceptable name for it than Czech. Delete Czech-geo-stub, keep Czechia-geo-stub, as per WP:WSS. Grutness|^hello? 22:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Where was this debate? NoPuzzleStranger 00:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • IIRC, some of it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (which is where stub creation debates usually occurs) and some of it on various Usr talk pages. Grutness|^hello?
      • There's nothing about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, and private discussions don't count. So what would be "incorrect" about Czech-geo-stub? If you want to claim some previous consensus, you will have to document it. NoPuzzleStranger 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For me (as a Czech user) is Czechia quite acceptable - also our government officially encourages people to use it. Miaow Miaow 23:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you take a look at Category:Geography stubs, you'll see that no other geo-stub category uses the adjective form of a country name, they all use the noun form. So if we are to remain consistent, we have to call this Czechia-geo-stub or Czech-Republic-geo-stub, and the former is much less cumbersome. — Ливай | ☺ 00:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Ливай. When stumbling on pages that need a stub-tag, this is much easier to do if stub-tags are predictable in form. The stub-tag itself doesn't have to be in brilliant prose or use 100% correct terminology, as we can let it display any message we like. / Tupsharru 11:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Those last two comments are obviously bogus. Either we want to be correct, then it has to be Czech-Republic-geo-stub, or we consider that too cumbersome and divert in some way from the correct form, in which case the most appropriate alternative is to use the adjective, not some controversial and obscure word that is not found in any respectable English dictionary. What kind of argument is it to say we have to use a noun because we use nouns in all other cases, but we don't have to use the standard name even though we use the standard name in all other cases? And how is "Czechia" predictable? How would anyone predict a word which is used in only 0.2% of all references to the country in Google News? "We can let it display any message we like" - well then, why not Czech-geo-stub? NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both as long as both add the same stub category and people avoid replacing one with the other, there is no harm having two of them. -- User:Docu
• Keep. And let's finally have the decency to call countries what their governments ask us to call them. As for NoPuzzleStranger's fascinating comment about a "dubious neologism", could he please explain what makes a neologism dubious? As a professional linguist I find that beyond my understanding of how languages work. When a new entity appears, such as a new country, it needs a name, and a neologism is normal and proper. "Czechia" is a neat one, and is no more lumpish than "Slovakia". --Doric Loon 12:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The only official name of the country is Czech Republic. It's dubious because it's controversial even in the Czech Republic itself, and it's virtually never used in English. We don't popularize neologisms here, we follow existing common usage. Whether's it's "neat" is therefore irrelevant. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BTW, if you are voting here, you should also make your opinion heard on the talk page of the Czech Republic article - a vote is going on there about possibly renaming that article Czechia.
  • Already did, although that proposal is almost frivolous - there's no chance Czech Republic will be moved to Czechia. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same reason as Doric Loon. Every other country in Europe has a free-standing name, why not Czechia? Besides, the official name is Česká republika, which only translates to Czech Republic (Okay this justification is entirely contrived, but I've seen worse around these debates). --Bastique 20:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't know about that - there's hardly been a rush to change the name of articles about La République Française from France to French Republic... Grutness|^hello? 09:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Basketball Coaches

Revised to simple succession box. MisfitToys 20:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

April 8

Template:TLA

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

• Delete - seems the explanatory text doesn't add anything, and we have other mechanisms on the pages like Category:TLAs, Category:Lists of two-letter combinations. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Keep. -- User:Docu
• Delete per Netoholic. Radiant_* 07:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

April 7

Template:2005Calendar through Template:2024Calendar

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

• Deprecated by generic calender templates for both months and years (dependent on the weekday of january 1st and leapness of the year). Well-intended, but unfortunately needless clutter. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - needless meta-templates. Have the alternate calendars been created yet, for comparison? -- Netoholic @ 15:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Note, Template:AprilCalendar2005 is still being in use. And they aren't necessarily meta-templates, at least for the ones I created from 2006 to 2025. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If a template includes a call to another template, it is a meta-template. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Oppose. Netoholic, please really take a look. Template:MayCalendar2006Source is not a meta-template in any way. It's actual template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Templates for "Leap year starting on tuesday" or "30-day month starting on friday" (with parametrization for which month and year it is) have the advantage of being reusable for each and every year in the Gregorian calendar, obviating the need for hundreds of templates for each individual month and year therein. Radiant_* 09:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Template:AprilCalendar2004 etc could easily redirect to Template:Year B 4. It would be nice if there was an overview page for these templates. -- User:Docu

Template:Numbers (360s)

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

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

• Keep Template:Numbers 200-300, Template:Numbers (3 E2) currently in use. -- User:Docu

• • Now replaced by the more general number templates I mentioned. Thus deprecated once more. And that 3E2 is used by 360s is not the point since 360s itself isn't used. Radiant_* 07:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• • The two templates were used for 235 (number) and 311 (number). Which ones are "the more general number templates I mentionned" ? Your initial post doesn't mention them nor did you outline the changes on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers ? I just note that you removed the two templates from the articles without replacing them by anything else on 07:11, Apr 11, 2005. --- User:Docu

• Keep: I, too, would like to see the more general template before voting to delete this. Until then, I'm voting to keep this, but I think that only the 'important' numbers should be there (i.e. those with somewhat unique mathematical properties, or those that have some other importance). I may change my vote after seeing the "more general" templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Whydelete

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

• Hrm. I'm certain I've seen this wording before, and not on any of the talk pages where it's currently instanced. Standard practice might well be to subst it in, since leaving it as a template might be seen as an affront to the user. —Korath (Talk) 10:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm probably the only person using this (since I didn't publicize it at all); usually I "subst" it just on general principle. But it's useful for bringing WP:CSD to the attention of editors who have improperly listed things for sppedy deletion. It seems more polite than just reverting a speedy nomination without comment. It hasn't been used recently because I haven't been doing CAT:CSD duty much recently. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that it should have more detail, but 'bad' content is never a reason for deleting something. Keep this template, just like we keep other messages like Template:Test, Template:Test2, etc. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:New TFD

(and redirect at Template:TFDNotice)

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

• Nor should it be. Whenever someone "helpfully" refactors a vfd like this, it stops being a discussion and starts turning into a shouting match. There's no reason to suspect things would be any different here. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 07:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I like this (the basic idea, at least). It organises the reasons for and against (and their accompanying votes — but as has been stressed continually, it shouldn't be, and in theory it's not, about the votes) into clear sections. These discussions can turn into shouting matches anyway; I'm not sure why this would accelerate the process. Unlike the Tally Box, it doesn't focus on votes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Korath. Like the Tally Box Pox. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same ambiguity issues here as with tally boxes. -Sean Curtin 22:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is often helpful to see the votes seperated, especially when people don't bold their votes. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletedpage

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

• Delete. The use of MediaWiki:Noarticletext makes this template obsolete. Zzyzx11 05:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and rewrite. I dislike using MediaWiki:Noarticletext as it is confusing to fellow good faith editors. -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Given the rareness of pages being locked as empty, and the apparent lengthy discussions that have preceded them, I'd prefer them blank. The text of this template is equally (mildly) confusing, btw imho. Delete. Radiant_* 11:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite, I agree the text can be somewhat confusing as it is, but I'd even prefer this over a completely blank page as per Netoholics argument. --TVPR 21:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite: badly worded, but mediawiki:noarticletext isn't a valid alternative because it's not meant for these cases. It's meant for pages that don't exist, and can be edited. It would be very confusing to a new user to see something saying "Click here to create this page", but upon clicking, they can't actually edit it because it would be protected. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 6

Template:Deletetranswikied

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

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

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

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

Template:CFUPTYSYSTTD

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

• So are you asking for deletion, or do you need help finding out how to move the template yourself? -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • No need to be short with him. Since BJAODN is not composed of subpages, and a redirect would be silly, listing for deletion is appropriate.
• Delete. Snowspinner 23:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I have copied it there. Now delete. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Who the heck would have such a warped mind to come up with this patent nonsense? Denelson83 08:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a blatant case of someone abusing Wikipedia to make a point. The creator has most likely been involved in recent debates over whether CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat should be considered a free license. I still think it's funny though. Deco 20:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 5

Template:Tfd

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

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

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

I shall take the first point first.

The text of the template reads,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep, of course. →Vik Reykja 17:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would you create an alternate tfd template? Simply propose changes on Template talk:tfd. Rhobite 05:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT --Carnildo 06:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As per Rhobite and Carnildo. Keep. Uncle G 11:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Oh dear lordy. Sure, the tfd notice needs some work, but deleting it and replacing it is overkill. Keep and modify if necessary - which, as Rhobite pointed out, should be done on Template talk:tfd, not here. Grutness|^hello? 02:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but this nomination may be BJAODN worthy :) -Frazzydee|✍ 03:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't BJAODN it. The nominator took it quite seriously, and seems to have left Wikipedia over the issue; see the template's recent history and some of the fallout on my talk page. —Korath (Talk) 05:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I think I underestimated the seriousness of this nomination. Please accept my apologies. -Frazzydee|✍ 16:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Proposal to delete is utterly stupid. I believe Xiong is becoming deliberately disruptive. -- FP 06:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination may be a troll.-gadfium 08:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ttfd

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Ttfd:

Template:Ttfd

Template:Tfd:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely no need for it. -- FP 06:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, must be a private joke.-gadfium 08:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that:

1. Whoever admin deleted this template entirely failed to properly archive this debate, so far as I know, or remove it from workflow. Quick to whack, slow to tidy up.

2. Again, unless the archived debate is substantially different that what I see here, there was a failure to properly orphan the template prior to deletion. The instance of the template above, in the (hotly debated itself) side-by-side comparison, should have been retained by way of the subst:atom, and thus preserved to survive the template deletion itself. The instance was not a mere reference to the template page, but an inclusion of the template substance within the debate.

We try so hard to pretend we are rational men of goodwill; why does it so often appear we are merely ready to sink to a petty level to advance our POV and sabotage others'?

Waving this aside for the moment, I do hope the group has learned something from all of this: Your pet always looks more important than your enemy's. If you uphold neutrality, fairness, and intellectual honesty, and you want others to treat your stuff with respect, you will have to do the same for them. — Xiongtalk 22:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I count 8 delete votes and zero keep votes. Even you voted to delete this template. There's clearly a consensus to delete it. To say that I'm confused would be an understatement. Why do you keep using the word "pet"? Rhobite 23:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Pet" -- I'm sorry; this may be one of those things that is either immediately apparent, or cannot be explained in less time than it is worth. If you got it, fine; if not, leave the term aside for now.

I think we have shown a sorry lack of regard for the templates nominated on this page -- I include myself, and prior to the recent dust-up, too. Templates do many things, serve many roles -- tagging a template, not to mention deleting it, has many consequences. I don't belive we are sufficiently respectful of these consequences, many of which must surely be unintended.

We should not attempt to make this process contentious, or use it to advance an agenda. TfD should concentrate on garbage removal -- deletion of templates that are clearly of no use to anyone. The mere existence of a contentious debate on any given template should be immediate cause to bounce it from this process.

There are many templates which need improvement, yes. Sometimes a template should be removed, but its function must be replaced before removing the actual template. None of this work can be done in a contentious atmosphere.

How did we get from "consensus" to immediate, divisive voting on each template? How did it even become possible to conceive of {{NewTFD}}? We should be working together, not turning every nomination into a pitched battle -- or, just as bad, a kangaroo-court bum's rush, with deletionists running roughshod over every other user in the project.

My simple point is that every template was created by someone, and at a minimum, that creator needs to be made part of the TfD process, unless we can swear before all the gods that we are completely sure that nobody would care anything if we summarily obliterate his creation. — Xiongtalk 07:47, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

April 4

Template:Numberlist and Template:Disamb2

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

Template:Numberlist

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

Template:Disamb2

• Keep. This falls under the same general category as templates like {{moveto}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{split}} and provides a useable boilerplate opinion statement. Courtland 02:40, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems redundant. --ssd 13:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:VfDis

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

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

Template:Potc

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

• Delete. Silly. RickK 23:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Category duplication. It's silly to have a template for this. Firebug 09:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the intent of this navigational template. Consider the templates for book series at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Entertainment_and_fiction_2. Articles exist for all the links on this template, something which should be a universal requirement but apparently is not. The Template is not necessarily limited to members of the movie series but also to spin-off items as well (books, for instance). Finally, I don't like to see it existing, frankly, but just because the content is not to my liking is no reason for it to be banished from Wikipedia. Courtland 00:34, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete, too small a group to need a navigational template. -Sean Curtin 22:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sean Curtin, especially since Pirates of the Caribbean 3's vfd just resulted into a redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead_Man's Chest. —Korath (Talk) 14:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Add

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

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

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

I just came across {{Usercomment}}, which is a rather specialized version of {{add}}. I maintain that if one be permitted, the more general {add} should be preferred; or both permitted. If anyone can show why {Usercomment} should be permitted, but not {add}, please do so. — Xiongtalk 03:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Keep, some people like to have this rather than the + button...new users often aren't aware of how to post comments, and leave it in a random place on your talk page. This helps that problem, and many users find this template prettier. Some also find it useful in the Wikipedia: namespace. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Doctl

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

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

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

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

• Keep. This template seems reasonable and helpful. It might not be necessary, and it might not see a lot of use, but I don't see reason to delete it at this time. -- FP 00:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

April 3

Template:Current U.S. Senators

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

Template:Cleanup-importance

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

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

March 25

Template:Manga

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

Delete

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

Keep

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

Other

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

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

March 20

Template:VfD-Königsburg

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

Summary after 2 weeks — no opposition to deletion

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

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

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

March 15

Template:Reqimg

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

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

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

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

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

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

• delete (redirect iff kept). There should only be one template for pages listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. The most commonly used one is Template:Reqimage (which also has the most appropriate name as well). Even that template should be rewritten it so that it is designed to go on the article's talk page instead of the article's main page, and then all the current uses of the template should be moved to talk pages. BlankVerse ∅ 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• For the same reasons given to delete the accompanying Category:Articles that need pictures (namely, it's painfully redundant), this template should go away. --iMb~Mw 07:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (except as outlined below). There are two reasons listed above for deleting: (1) it's obvious which articles need pictures, so no template is necessary (Xiong, iMeowbot); (2) a template is necessary, but only one, and we already have {{reqimage}} (BlankVerse). (1) As to reason 1, I agree, but I think that this discussion should be about {{reqimage}} also; as long as {{reqimage}} isn't listed here, I'm voting "keep" on {{reqimg}}. (For that matter, the stub templates would also belong on tfd by the logic of reason 1.) (2) I absolutely disagree with reason 2, though: (a) There's nothing wrong with two templates; what does it hurt? And (b) this one serves a different purpose from {{reqimage}}, as is obvious from reading their text. —msh210 14:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I did not say it's obvious what articles need pictures. The redundancy is with WP:RP. — user:IMeowbot 23 Mar 2005
    • Sorry for the misunderstanding. —msh210 15:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete. The template is broken as is. And redundant even if it did work. older≠wiser 01:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - There no real need for almost identical templates like this. {{reqimage}} was perfectly fine to begin with. Louisisthebest_007 19:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Modify. I've voted Delete for {{picneed}} above. My feeling is that a general "need picture" message is not the best application of this template. I think it should be modified to work something like the {{deletebecause}} template that provides the ability ... necessitates really ... the addition of a reason. In the case of the modified {{reqimg}} the necessitated addition would be a statement of what picture is needed. I think this is very important for two reasons. First, it allows people to judge at first glance whether they can provide such an image or not. Second, the need for images is not universally accepted, but among those believing they are needed, the "right" text-to-image weight has no consensus and neither has the type of article needing images; for example, Sledgehammer vs. A priori ... an image could be added to both, though I'm certain that the need for an image for the latter would meet with little support. Courtland 01:05, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Delete Not much of a deletionist, but I think this one should go. Burgundavia 11:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Entirely redundant, given {{reqimage}}. Delete. Uncle G 15:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete in preference to {{reqimage}}. -- FP 23:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Holding Cell

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

To orphan

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

Template:Sejm Marshals

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

To convert to category

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

Ready to delete

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

On hold for technical reasons

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

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

Disputed (deprecated)

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

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

Summary: 2 Delete, 1 Keep ~ Courtland 8 March

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

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

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

Listings to log

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

Template:Toolong

Another User:SamuraiClinton creation, honstly, do we really need this any way, cosidering their is no policy saying as much, just recomendations. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant to Template:Split. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No way we need a boilerplate template for this. If you think an article should split, please say so on the talk page. Article length isn't a hard-and-fast rule, anyway. Rhobite 04:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we have MediaWiki:Longpagewarning for this. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:JB character

An exact copy of Template:James Bond Character for no reason. Orphan as well. K1Bond007 06:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Duplicate --DuKot 19:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a duplicate, but I think that it's much prettier than the other one. Maybe the content can be used in the other template? -Frazzydee|✍ 14:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 10

Template:Marylebone County Cricket Club v Warwickshire County Cricket Club (8-11 April 2005)

Improper use of a Template. This doesn't even seem to be worthy of an article, let alone a Template which is supposed to be used on multiple articles. We should stop the proliferation of Templates which contain text that would normally be used in an article. RickK 07:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

As part of a series of articles on the 2005 English cricket season, I would like the same text to go into three articles: one on the season as a whole, one on the MCC's season and another on Warwickshire's season. If you know a better way of linking one piece of text through to a number of different articles, let me know, jguk 08:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - We've voted this sort of thing down before, every time. There is no solution to replicate prose amongst several articles. Using this method is incredibly confusing for newbies. -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

  I've found a better way of doing what I want to now. I've moved the "template" into the Wikipedia namespace. By organising it like the WP:VfD page, it won't confuse newbies either, jguk 15:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand... it was not that it was a template, it was that the mechanism you're using is inappropriate. This was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/MCC v Warwickshire 8-11 April 2005. I'm going to go subst: it into all the articles using it. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Template namespace says "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." I put that text there because it gets voted out every time when it comes here - David Gerard 00:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• While I strongly agree with David Gerard on this point, I think the policy would benefit from discussions that are less ephemeral and abbreviated than those conducted here. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Template namespace and comment. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Template link

(and multiple redirects)

I'm note sure how this actually saves more than a couple keystrokes, and isn't worth the overhead inherent in redirect/template use. Don't see any room for future changes with it either. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Keep, saves more than "a couple keystrokes". Rather well used. Maybe a bot could go through and subst: them all every once in a while. --SPUI (talk) 04:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Subst doesn't seem to work with this template, alas, or I'd do so religiously. Example: {{subst:Template link|vfd}} -> NaodW29-nowiki291204952c9c7e0200000001vfdNaodW29-nowiki291204952c9c7e0200000002 —Korath (Talk) 07:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Subst has a problem with <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Try it now: {{purge}}. Alphax ^τεχ 16:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would agree, but it seems your definition of "a couple" and mine vary — the actual number is 45 + n, where n is the length of the template name. I find it a very handy convenience. Besides which, it already has a zillion uses embedded in text, all of which are now preceded by two ugly template-for-deletion banners. Can we please get this off this page as soon as possible? Deco 04:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The overhead is much like that of {{article}} or {{user}} (which also get subst:'ed a lot). It's a real pity that subst: doesn't work for it. --cesarb 12:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to {{template}} for uniformity with {{article}} and {{user}}: immensely useful, especially now it has been modofied to be subst-safe. --Phil | Talk 09:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment {{template}} redirects to {{template link}}. – ABCD 20:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Editor time is far more precious than server time, and even if using templates costs the servers some extra processing work (which I don't buy) that cost will go away in a couple years. dbenbenn | talk 13:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Usercomment

This template duplicates {{add}} :

Worse, its wording is more specialized, so its range of applicable use is restricted. In any case, it's been pointed out that most skins have tabs that provide this function, without the chatty comment. — Xiongtalk 03:49, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Delete both -- Netoholic @ 04:37, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is not a duplicate of {{add}}. The "add new comment" link is the only thing these two templates share. {{usercomment}} is not "chatty"; it simply welcomes and asks the user to sign his/her comments, and how to do so. This template is currently used on over 30 user talk pages, including mine (I put a static version up due to the uglification of the tfd tag). That's more than some article series boxes can boast. Why use it? First, it helps keep the talk pages less cluttered in edit mode. Second, not all users are aware of the + tab function; this is especially pertinent to administrators such as myself, due to the high number of messages left by anonymous or otherwise "newbie" users. (Before adopting the template, I frequently had to reshuffle comments into chronological order.) It's a harmless template that serves a purpose. -- Hadal 06:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, serves a signficant purpose. I based my talk header section on it, and if deleted, {{toppostusertalk}} and {{bottompostusertalk}} will need to go too. (If you nominate them for deletion, just because I mentioned them here, you are a heartless troll and I will consider it a personal attack.) Alphax ^τεχ 09:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely support Hadal on this. Please reconsider your proposal, and soon, because the TDT tag on many user pages doesn't look good (I'm trying to be polite). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As said above, it's a commonly used User_talk page decoration. Disclaimer: I'm one of these users. --cesarb 12:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see any good reason for deleting it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given by Hadal. -- FP 23:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

April 9

Template:Czechia-geo-stub/Template:Czech-geo-stub

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

• Delete. Starky 16:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It was, by the way, Starky who applied the speedy message, and has in the last hour been going on a "Czechia"-purging rampage, his first edits ever. —Korath (Talk) 17:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have not been going through a "Czechia-purging rampage", I was just replacing instances the old template with the newer shorter-named template, which doesn't gratuitously use the neologism "Czechia" for the Czech Republic. Starky 17:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not a neologism. Grutness|^hello? 00:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Czechia-geo-stub. "Czechia" is a dubious neologism that should be avoided. NoPuzzleStranger 19:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm adding Template:Czech-geo-stub at this point, at least until this mess is straightened out. At the very least, it's a cut and paste move. —Korath (Talk) 19:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Oops - without knowing about this debate, I've just redirected the (incorrect) Czech-geo-stub to CZechia-geo-stub. There was quite a bit of debate about the naming of this stub before its creation, and it was decided that Czechia was a far more acceptable name for it than Czech. Delete Czech-geo-stub, keep Czechia-geo-stub, as per WP:WSS. Grutness|^hello? 22:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Where was this debate? NoPuzzleStranger 00:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • IIRC, some of it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (which is where stub creation debates usually occurs) and some of it on various Usr talk pages. Grutness|^hello?
      • There's nothing about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, and private discussions don't count. So what would be "incorrect" about Czech-geo-stub? If you want to claim some previous consensus, you will have to document it. NoPuzzleStranger 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For me (as a Czech user) is Czechia quite acceptable - also our government officially encourages people to use it. Miaow Miaow 23:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you take a look at Category:Geography stubs, you'll see that no other geo-stub category uses the adjective form of a country name, they all use the noun form. So if we are to remain consistent, we have to call this Czechia-geo-stub or Czech-Republic-geo-stub, and the former is much less cumbersome. — Ливай | ☺ 00:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Ливай. When stumbling on pages that need a stub-tag, this is much easier to do if stub-tags are predictable in form. The stub-tag itself doesn't have to be in brilliant prose or use 100% correct terminology, as we can let it display any message we like. / Tupsharru 11:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Those last two comments are obviously bogus. Either we want to be correct, then it has to be Czech-Republic-geo-stub, or we consider that too cumbersome and divert in some way from the correct form, in which case the most appropriate alternative is to use the adjective, not some controversial and obscure word that is not found in any respectable English dictionary. What kind of argument is it to say we have to use a noun because we use nouns in all other cases, but we don't have to use the standard name even though we use the standard name in all other cases? And how is "Czechia" predictable? How would anyone predict a word which is used in only 0.2% of all references to the country in Google News? "We can let it display any message we like" - well then, why not Czech-geo-stub? NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both as long as both add the same stub category and people avoid replacing one with the other, there is no harm having two of them. -- User:Docu
• Keep. And let's finally have the decency to call countries what their governments ask us to call them. As for NoPuzzleStranger's fascinating comment about a "dubious neologism", could he please explain what makes a neologism dubious? As a professional linguist I find that beyond my understanding of how languages work. When a new entity appears, such as a new country, it needs a name, and a neologism is normal and proper. "Czechia" is a neat one, and is no more lumpish than "Slovakia". --Doric Loon 12:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The only official name of the country is Czech Republic. It's dubious because it's controversial even in the Czech Republic itself, and it's virtually never used in English. We don't popularize neologisms here, we follow existing common usage. Whether's it's "neat" is therefore irrelevant. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BTW, if you are voting here, you should also make your opinion heard on the talk page of the Czech Republic article - a vote is going on there about possibly renaming that article Czechia.
  • Already did, although that proposal is almost frivolous - there's no chance Czech Republic will be moved to Czechia. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same reason as Doric Loon. Every other country in Europe has a free-standing name, why not Czechia? Besides, the official name is Česká republika, which only translates to Czech Republic (Okay this justification is entirely contrived, but I've seen worse around these debates). --Bastique 20:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't know about that - there's hardly been a rush to change the name of articles about La République Française from France to French Republic... Grutness|^hello? 09:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Basketball Coaches

Revised to simple succession box. MisfitToys 20:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

April 8

Template:TLA

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

• Delete - seems the explanatory text doesn't add anything, and we have other mechanisms on the pages like Category:TLAs, Category:Lists of two-letter combinations. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Keep. -- User:Docu
• Delete per Netoholic. Radiant_* 07:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

April 7

Template:2005Calendar through Template:2024Calendar

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

• Deprecated by generic calender templates for both months and years (dependent on the weekday of january 1st and leapness of the year). Well-intended, but unfortunately needless clutter. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - needless meta-templates. Have the alternate calendars been created yet, for comparison? -- Netoholic @ 15:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Note, Template:AprilCalendar2005 is still being in use. And they aren't necessarily meta-templates, at least for the ones I created from 2006 to 2025. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If a template includes a call to another template, it is a meta-template. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Oppose. Netoholic, please really take a look. Template:MayCalendar2006Source is not a meta-template in any way. It's actual template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Templates for "Leap year starting on tuesday" or "30-day month starting on friday" (with parametrization for which month and year it is) have the advantage of being reusable for each and every year in the Gregorian calendar, obviating the need for hundreds of templates for each individual month and year therein. Radiant_* 09:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Template:AprilCalendar2004 etc could easily redirect to Template:Year B 4. It would be nice if there was an overview page for these templates. -- User:Docu

Template:Numbers (360s)

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

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

• Keep Template:Numbers 200-300, Template:Numbers (3 E2) currently in use. -- User:Docu

• • Now replaced by the more general number templates I mentioned. Thus deprecated once more. And that 3E2 is used by 360s is not the point since 360s itself isn't used. Radiant_* 07:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• • The two templates were used for 235 (number) and 311 (number). Which ones are "the more general number templates I mentionned" ? Your initial post doesn't mention them nor did you outline the changes on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers ? I just note that you removed the two templates from the articles without replacing them by anything else on 07:11, Apr 11, 2005. --- User:Docu

• Keep: I, too, would like to see the more general template before voting to delete this. Until then, I'm voting to keep this, but I think that only the 'important' numbers should be there (i.e. those with somewhat unique mathematical properties, or those that have some other importance). I may change my vote after seeing the "more general" templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Whydelete

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

• Hrm. I'm certain I've seen this wording before, and not on any of the talk pages where it's currently instanced. Standard practice might well be to subst it in, since leaving it as a template might be seen as an affront to the user. —Korath (Talk) 10:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm probably the only person using this (since I didn't publicize it at all); usually I "subst" it just on general principle. But it's useful for bringing WP:CSD to the attention of editors who have improperly listed things for sppedy deletion. It seems more polite than just reverting a speedy nomination without comment. It hasn't been used recently because I haven't been doing CAT:CSD duty much recently. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that it should have more detail, but 'bad' content is never a reason for deleting something. Keep this template, just like we keep other messages like Template:Test, Template:Test2, etc. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:New TFD

(and redirect at Template:TFDNotice)

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

• Nor should it be. Whenever someone "helpfully" refactors a vfd like this, it stops being a discussion and starts turning into a shouting match. There's no reason to suspect things would be any different here. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 07:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I like this (the basic idea, at least). It organises the reasons for and against (and their accompanying votes — but as has been stressed continually, it shouldn't be, and in theory it's not, about the votes) into clear sections. These discussions can turn into shouting matches anyway; I'm not sure why this would accelerate the process. Unlike the Tally Box, it doesn't focus on votes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Korath. Like the Tally Box Pox. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same ambiguity issues here as with tally boxes. -Sean Curtin 22:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is often helpful to see the votes seperated, especially when people don't bold their votes. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletedpage

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

• Delete. The use of MediaWiki:Noarticletext makes this template obsolete. Zzyzx11 05:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and rewrite. I dislike using MediaWiki:Noarticletext as it is confusing to fellow good faith editors. -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
• Given the rareness of pages being locked as empty, and the apparent lengthy discussions that have preceded them, I'd prefer them blank. The text of this template is equally (mildly) confusing, btw imho. Delete. Radiant_* 11:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite, I agree the text can be somewhat confusing as it is, but I'd even prefer this over a completely blank page as per Netoholics argument. --TVPR 21:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite: badly worded, but mediawiki:noarticletext isn't a valid alternative because it's not meant for these cases. It's meant for pages that don't exist, and can be edited. It would be very confusing to a new user to see something saying "Click here to create this page", but upon clicking, they can't actually edit it because it would be protected. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 6

Template:Deletetranswikied

This speedy-deletion-notice template was recently created by User:Sirkumsize [3]. However, its very existence is a bit problematic and contradictory, because the mere fact that a page has been transwikied is not explicitly one of the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact, an article being a dicdef stub was explicitly voted down in voting a few months ago to expand the speedy-deletion criteria. Many topics that have simple one-line dictionary definitions could also be the subjects of long encyclopedia articles (such as "astronomy", or many others). So it does not follow from the mere fact that a Wiktionary page has been created that the corresponding Wikipedia page should be deleted.

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

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

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

Template:CFUPTYSYSTTD

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

• So are you asking for deletion, or do you need help finding out how to move the template yourself? -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • No need to be short with him. Since BJAODN is not composed of subpages, and a redirect would be silly, listing for deletion is appropriate.
• Delete. Snowspinner 23:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I have copied it there. Now delete. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Who the heck would have such a warped mind to come up with this patent nonsense? Denelson83 08:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a blatant case of someone abusing Wikipedia to make a point. The creator has most likely been involved in recent debates over whether CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat should be considered a free license. I still think it's funny though. Deco 20:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 5

Template:Tfd

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

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

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

I shall take the first point first.

The text of the template reads,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep, of course. →Vik Reykja 17:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would you create an alternate tfd template? Simply propose changes on Template talk:tfd. Rhobite 05:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT --Carnildo 06:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As per Rhobite and Carnildo. Keep. Uncle G 11:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Oh dear lordy. Sure, the tfd notice needs some work, but deleting it and replacing it is overkill. Keep and modify if necessary - which, as Rhobite pointed out, should be done on Template talk:tfd, not here. Grutness|^hello? 02:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but this nomination may be BJAODN worthy :) -Frazzydee|✍ 03:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't BJAODN it. The nominator took it quite seriously, and seems to have left Wikipedia over the issue; see the template's recent history and some of the fallout on my talk page. —Korath (Talk) 05:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I think I underestimated the seriousness of this nomination. Please accept my apologies. -Frazzydee|✍ 16:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Proposal to delete is utterly stupid. I believe Xiong is becoming deliberately disruptive. -- FP 06:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination may be a troll.-gadfium 08:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ttfd

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Ttfd:

Template:Ttfd

Template:Tfd:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I now reply to Carnildo. It did seem to me at first that the ideal solution to the malformed {tfd} text was to improve it directly. If you take a peek at [4], you'll see I attempted that very solution. Having repaired {tfd}, of course, I thought this matter at an end -- or, more precisely, that others would come along and build on this to further improve it, and the immediate crisis be ended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely no need for it. -- FP 06:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, must be a private joke.-gadfium 08:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that:

1. Whoever admin deleted this template entirely failed to properly archive this debate, so far as I know, or remove it from workflow. Quick to whack, slow to tidy up.

2. Again, unless the archived debate is substantially different that what I see here, there was a failure to properly orphan the template prior to deletion. The instance of the template above, in the (hotly debated itself) side-by-side comparison, should have been retained by way of the subst:atom, and thus preserved to survive the template deletion itself. The instance was not a mere reference to the template page, but an inclusion of the template substance within the debate.

We try so hard to pretend we are rational men of goodwill; why does it so often appear we are merely ready to sink to a petty level to advance our POV and sabotage others'?

Waving this aside for the moment, I do hope the group has learned something from all of this: Your pet always looks more important than your enemy's. If you uphold neutrality, fairness, and intellectual honesty, and you want others to treat your stuff with respect, you will have to do the same for them. — Xiongtalk 22:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I count 8 delete votes and zero keep votes. Even you voted to delete this template. There's clearly a consensus to delete it. To say that I'm confused would be an understatement. Why do you keep using the word "pet"? Rhobite 23:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Pet" -- I'm sorry; this may be one of those things that is either immediately apparent, or cannot be explained in less time than it is worth. If you got it, fine; if not, leave the term aside for now.

I think we have shown a sorry lack of regard for the templates nominated on this page -- I include myself, and prior to the recent dust-up, too. Templates do many things, serve many roles -- tagging a template, not to mention deleting it, has many consequences. I don't belive we are sufficiently respectful of these consequences, many of which must surely be unintended.

We should not attempt to make this process contentious, or use it to advance an agenda. TfD should concentrate on garbage removal -- deletion of templates that are clearly of no use to anyone. The mere existence of a contentious debate on any given template should be immediate cause to bounce it from this process.

There are many templates which need improvement, yes. Sometimes a template should be removed, but its function must be replaced before removing the actual template. None of this work can be done in a contentious atmosphere.

How did we get from "consensus" to immediate, divisive voting on each template? How did it even become possible to conceive of {{NewTFD}}? We should be working together, not turning every nomination into a pitched battle -- or, just as bad, a kangaroo-court bum's rush, with deletionists running roughshod over every other user in the project.

My simple point is that every template was created by someone, and at a minimum, that creator needs to be made part of the TfD process, unless we can swear before all the gods that we are completely sure that nobody would care anything if we summarily obliterate his creation. — Xiongtalk 07:47, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

April 4

Template:Numberlist and Template:Disamb2

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

Template:Numberlist

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

Template:Disamb2

• Keep. This falls under the same general category as templates like {{moveto}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{split}} and provides a useable boilerplate opinion statement. Courtland 02:40, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems redundant. --ssd 13:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:VfDis

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

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

Template:Potc

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

• Delete. Silly. RickK 23:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Category duplication. It's silly to have a template for this. Firebug 09:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the intent of this navigational template. Consider the templates for book series at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Entertainment_and_fiction_2. Articles exist for all the links on this template, something which should be a universal requirement but apparently is not. The Template is not necessarily limited to members of the movie series but also to spin-off items as well (books, for instance). Finally, I don't like to see it existing, frankly, but just because the content is not to my liking is no reason for it to be banished from Wikipedia. Courtland 00:34, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete, too small a group to need a navigational template. -Sean Curtin 22:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Sean Curtin, especially since Pirates of the Caribbean 3's vfd just resulted into a redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead_Man's Chest. —Korath (Talk) 14:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Add

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

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

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

I just came across {{Usercomment}}, which is a rather specialized version of {{add}}. I maintain that if one be permitted, the more general {add} should be preferred; or both permitted. If anyone can show why {Usercomment} should be permitted, but not {add}, please do so. — Xiongtalk 03:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Keep, some people like to have this rather than the + button...new users often aren't aware of how to post comments, and leave it in a random place on your talk page. This helps that problem, and many users find this template prettier. Some also find it useful in the Wikipedia: namespace. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Doctl

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

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

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

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

• Keep. This template seems reasonable and helpful. It might not be necessary, and it might not see a lot of use, but I don't see reason to delete it at this time. -- FP 00:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

April 3

Template:Current U.S. Senators

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

Template:Cleanup-importance

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

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

March 25

Template:Manga

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

Delete

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

Keep

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

Other

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

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

March 20

Template:VfD-Königsburg

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

Summary after 2 weeks — no opposition to deletion

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

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

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

March 15

Template:Reqimg

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

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

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

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

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

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

• delete (redirect iff kept). There should only be one template for pages listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. The most commonly used one is Template:Reqimage (which also has the most appropriate name as well). Even that template should be rewritten it so that it is designed to go on the article's talk page instead of the article's main page, and then all the current uses of the template should be moved to talk pages. BlankVerse ∅ 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• For the same reasons given to delete the accompanying Category:Articles that need pictures (namely, it's painfully redundant), this template should go away. --iMb~Mw 07:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (except as outlined below). There are two reasons listed above for deleting: (1) it's obvious which articles need pictures, so no template is necessary (Xiong, iMeowbot); (2) a template is necessary, but only one, and we already have {{reqimage}} (BlankVerse). (1) As to reason 1, I agree, but I think that this discussion should be about {{reqimage}} also; as long as {{reqimage}} isn't listed here, I'm voting "keep" on {{reqimg}}. (For that matter, the stub templates would also belong on tfd by the logic of reason 1.) (2) I absolutely disagree with reason 2, though: (a) There's nothing wrong with two templates; what does it hurt? And (b) this one serves a different purpose from {{reqimage}}, as is obvious from reading their text. —msh210 14:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I did not say it's obvious what articles need pictures. The redundancy is with WP:RP. — user:IMeowbot 23 Mar 2005
    • Sorry for the misunderstanding. —msh210 15:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete. The template is broken as is. And redundant even if it did work. older≠wiser 01:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - There no real need for almost identical templates like this. {{reqimage}} was perfectly fine to begin with. Louisisthebest_007 19:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Modify. I've voted Delete for {{picneed}} above. My feeling is that a general "need picture" message is not the best application of this template. I think it should be modified to work something like the {{deletebecause}} template that provides the ability ... necessitates really ... the addition of a reason. In the case of the modified {{reqimg}} the necessitated addition would be a statement of what picture is needed. I think this is very important for two reasons. First, it allows people to judge at first glance whether they can provide such an image or not. Second, the need for images is not universally accepted, but among those believing they are needed, the "right" text-to-image weight has no consensus and neither has the type of article needing images; for example, Sledgehammer vs. A priori ... an image could be added to both, though I'm certain that the need for an image for the latter would meet with little support. Courtland 01:05, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Delete Not much of a deletionist, but I think this one should go. Burgundavia 11:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Entirely redundant, given {{reqimage}}. Delete. Uncle G 15:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete in preference to {{reqimage}}. -- FP 23:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Holding Cell

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

To orphan

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

Template:Sejm Marshals

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

To convert to category

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

Ready to delete

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

On hold for technical reasons

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

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

Disputed (deprecated)

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

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

Summary: 2 Delete, 1 Keep ~ Courtland 8 March

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

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

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

Listings to log

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