Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xiong (talk | contribs) at 07:19, 7 April 2005 (→‎[[Template:Divbox]] and related: -outcome: no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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.


Terms

Templates are somewhat of a Wikibackwater and template editors employ certain unusual terms:

  • A Template is a piece of reusable text in the "Template" namespace.
  • A tfd is a template proposed for deletion, or the proposal for deletion itself. This is analagous to a vfd for an ordinary main namespace article.
  • A blank template is one that contains no text; that is, Somebody has deleted its content. However, the template still exists; it is merely blank, or empty of content.
  • TheTemplate (for example) is instanced or included in other templates or articles when, in their sources, the wiki markup {{TheTemplate}} appears. Conventional wikilinks of the form [[Template:TheTemplate]] are generally unused, but never constitute an instance of TheTemplate.
  • An orphan is a template which is never instanced (outside of any debate about itself, or on its own Talk page).
  • "Orphaning" is the process of removing all instances of a given template -- that is, its wiki markup is removed wherever it appears.
  • Fully orphaned is a rhetorical intensifier of orphaned, with no semantic value. Links to a template from this page or any Talk page are usually not removed during orphaning.
  • A deleted template no longer exists. All references to it, including instances (as do references to any non-existent page), become redlinks. Note that only orphaned templates should ever be deleted.

Process (stages)

Templates proposed for deletion go through a multistage process. This process is reflected in the following main sections on this page:

  • Discussion
  • Holding cell
  • Deletions to log

Each stage is explained under this section. Please don't list any templates under this section.

Discussion (stage)

Subsections are organized:

  • By date
    • By template-proposed-for-deletion name

{{tfd}} (substage)

To propose that a template be deleted, insert the text {{tfd}} to the top of the template. This adds the following message:

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

The message should be placed inside the box when adding it to series box templates, to make clear what is being proposed for deletion.

Do not blank templates to list them here; but if the template is already blank, then don't add {{tfd}} to the already-blank template; add it to the blank template's Talk page instead.

Templates should not be orphaned prior to listing.

New listing (substage)

Templates newly proposed for deletion should be put under today's date at the bottom of the "Discussion" section.

A suggested format for new listings is available with the template Template:New TFD. This will insert a new subsection with predefined areas for discussion and voting on the proposed deletion. Usage:

{{subst:New TFD|TemplateProposedForDeletion|InitialComment}}

Discussion and vote (substage)

The following votes are permissible; add under the appropriate section: "Keep", "Delete", or "Other".

  • Keep.
  • Delete.
  • If you are not voting "Delete" or "Keep", add your comment under the template's "Other" subsection. "Convert to category" is an example of another vote. A template for which consensus prevails to "Convert to category" will be deleted and all pages which reference the template will be added to an appropriately-named category.
  • If you comment at all, please give a reason how the template under consideration either does or does not meet Wikipedia standards, as referenced at the top of this page. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement.

Outcome (substage)

Seven days after a template has been listed on this page, an outcome of the discussion-and-vote stage may have been reached.

  • If a consensus has been reached in favor of deletion, the template is eligible for deletion. Also, if the proposal has been made without objection, the template is eligible for deletion. Action: Remove to "To orphan".
  • If a consensus has been reached that the template be kept, the process is over. There is much of this sort of work to be done in the depths of the Wikimachinery; let's expend our efforts wisely. Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Remove {{tfd}} tag from template's main page.
  • If a consensus has been reached in favor of "conversion to a category", the template will be deleted and all pages which reference the template will be added to an appropriately-named category. Action: Remove to "convert to category".
  • It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove {{tfd}} tag from template's main page. ("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept.

In any case, template subsections are removed from the Discussions section, by date, when they are 7 days old.

Holding cell (stage)

Depending on the outcome of the discussion and voting period, templates are removed from Discussions to an appropriate subsection of the Holding cell. Once here, specific maintenance tasks must be performed. Unless otherwise noted, any member can do this necessary work.

  • To orphan: Templates in this section must be orphaned. This entails examination of the "What links here" page for the template, visiting each listed page, and editing it to remove the soon-to-be-deleted template. When this is complete, the template should be moved to "Ready to delete".
  • To convert to category: The content of such templates must be "poured out" into a category and all pages which reference it altered. This requires an understanding of both templates and Wikipedia categories. When this is complete, the template should be moved to "Ready to delete".
  • Ready to delete: Templates in this subsection await the attention of an admin, who will perform the actual deletion. Note that only fully orphaned templates belong here.
  • On hold for technical reasons: This is a temporary subsection needed because of a bug in the Wikipedia software; if it is discovered that a fully orphaned template cannot be deleted, it is temporarily placed here.

Deletions to log (stage)

An admin who performs an actual template deletion may move the deleted template to the Deletions to log section.

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

This is the final point in this process. (Whew!)

Reintroduction

If a template survives a proposal for deletion, please do not reintroduce it for a period of one month, unless it has been substantially edited in the interval (and probably not then). We have enough work to do and must move on, avoiding dead-end controversy. Template:01


Discussion

Add new proposals for template deletion at the bottom of this section.

March 11

China and Taiwan related geo-stubs (slight return)

A short update to last month's hotly contended debate about China-geo-stub and Taiwan-geo-stub. After considerable discussion here, at cfd, and at WP:WSS, the following compromise was reached on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting as regards the geo-stub categories relating to the two entities referred to as China. The former China-geo-stub template has been kept, but considerably altered to reflect its new destination category, and a new template Template:Taiwan-geo-stub has been created.

China-related and Taiwan-related stubs are still to be dealt with. Grutness|hello? 07:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Don't move - quite clearly no adjustment is required unless we wish to take a stance against China's recent non-secession act - which as we are NPOV, we don't, jguk 13:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Erm... don't move what? If you mean the geo-stubs, it's too late - that's all been dealt with. If you mean the non-geographic items, politics are just part of the problem. The histories of the two, erm, places are so intertwined that it's often difficult to work out which is the better reference category. Another problem is that removing the geo-stubs from Taiwan-stub has left the category nearly empty. As far as the politics is concerned, personally I'd prefer no move, too, but the use of the word "Taiwan" upsets and/or unnerves some people. For the time being, as-is/where-is seems to be good, but nsooner or later someone is bound to start kicking up a fuss. Grutness|hello? 01:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The decision - which you agreed to - was the wording that was there before. In other words, it WAS solved - there is no need for your temporary screwing with the template. It has been reverted, I'm glad to say (and not by me). Edit wars on templates are not a good thing - they can seriously stuff up the categories the templates lead to. Please do not change this again. Grutness|hello? 06:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (to clarify, this comment is not directed solely to Instantnood... it took almost three months of debate to reach agreement on the template, and it's been edited, amended and reverted nearly a dozen times since agreement was reached. Edit wars on templates we can do without!)

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)

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 23

Template:Banana-stub

Carrying stub sorting to its illogical conclusion. Can't we speedy this one? Pretty please? Grutness|hello? 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (speedy or otherwise). BlankVerse ∅ 03:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template has been here since 15 March and nobody has used it (What a surprise.) I think it's also an excellent candidate for BJAODN. (I couldn't resist adding a picture of a banana to make it a more stylish stub notice.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, Banana-stub! (delete) Goplat 03:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. I managed to refrain from making a snarky comment earlier about it not even having a picture, and just what are they teaching the little trolls these days, but now the point is kind of moot. —Korath (Talk) 03:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just be glad they weren't thorough enough to create a category for banana stubs.--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This stub-related template is nonsense. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it. dbenbenn | talk 04:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are many varieties of bananas. Those articles on bananas that are stubs deserve this template. Why bother? Gerritholl 10:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If there were articles that were using the stub (nothing but administrative pages are at "What links here") then you would be able to make a stronger case. If there are ~100 stub articles about banana varieties, foods where banana is the major ingredient, drugs administered via banana ingestion, etc. then a case could be made. There aren't about 100 banana varieties are there? Courtland 10:09, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's all a matter of editor interest. There could be a hundred-odd stub articles about banana-related topics; there exist this many (and probably more) banana topics in the real world, but bananas don't attract the same kind of fan base, as, say, the works of J.R.R. Tolkein.--Pharos 10:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if only to make me hungry when I'm editing late at night. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 06:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Enshrine as exemplar of most superflous template -- stub poster child. Replace all instances of its use with a more general stub template. — Xiong (talk) 09:42, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silly and not needed. RedWolf 05:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reqimage

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 any template. — Xiong (talk) 14:47, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

There should be some discussion, once and for all, about whether to have templates like this. There was a suggestion somewhere (at WikiProject Stub sorting perhaps?) that {{stub}} and all the other stub templates be gotten rid of, as it's obvious what's a stub. You're suggesting that {{reqimage}} be gotten rid of for the same reason. One can argue that {{unknown}}, {{unverified}}, {{cleanup-copyedit}}, {{gcheck}}, and {{limitedgeographicscope}} should be deleted for the same reason. Perhaps we should move this discussion to WP:VP and decide what to do with all such templates. —msh210 15:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. It is true that there is an "almost universal" need for images. But it is slightly naive to use that as an excuse to delete this template; some pages have a more acute need for images than others. (For instance, featured article candidates, animal pages, etc.) Also, while the need for extra images may be "immediately and glaringly obvious" to expert editors, others might not notice the need immediately; sometimes reminder templates are very helpful. Furthermore, dedicated picture contributors can look for pages listing the template to see where they can assist. The template also acts as a flag that the page is listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. (Since it is wrong to request images on specific pages, are you going to list that page for deletion as well?)-- FP 00:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not all articles require images, Especially for the more graphic kinds of subjects which may not be appriopiate for viewing. Maybe what reqimage needs is some rewording which specifically says that its for articles which needs images to greatly improve the information on the page to explain it properly or something...Specific in otherwords... Louisisthebest_007 17:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Joy [shallot] 18:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Am I getting deja vu, or is this template listed further up the page? Grutness|hello? 23:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This has the potential to become a permanent tag on many articles. Can't we use Wikipedia:Requested pictures and barring that, assume that almost every article would be better with an illustration? re: Grutness' question, TfD has also had Template:Picneed and Template:Reqimg listed recently. At the time, they were all separate templates. Reqimg has now been redirected to reqimage, which is up for deletion. re: Msh210's policy question, personally I support cleanup tags which are easily actionable. For cleanup-copyedit there is an obvious course of action to remove the tag. Tags like stub and npov are harder to act upon, but they indicate an important deficiency of the article. I don't think articles need to be tagged for lacking pictures. Rhobite 00:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Vik Reykja ♬ 04:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 06:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - one template to do this function is needed, and this one has seniority. -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 2005 Mar 31 (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)
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)
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 27

Template:Senior citizen

  • Links to a total of 6 articles on Vfd, and (according to what I think is most likely)]] only the last 2 of these will probably survive Vfd as articles of their own and this probably means the template itself should be deleted. Georgia guy 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I abstain until the relevant VfD discussions are complete. Zzyzx11 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. After the deletion has run its course, I have reworked it to reference five currently existing articles. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- pseudo-category. — Xiong (talk) 10:06, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Keep. Why do these people from other fields continue to launch assaults on the work of others? If they think their job is to destroy knowledge...the Mongols did a lot more than they ever will. Ryoung122 19:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March 29

Template:Education-wikify

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


Template:Sucks

While I acknowledge that articles with {{attention}}, let alone {{cleanup}}, don't get fixed as quickly as we'd like, there's got to be more productive ways of dealing with them than this. —Korath (Talk) 09:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh! Delete it. Smoddy (tgeck) 10:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, of course (and it occupies exactly the same ecological niche than "attention"). Rama 10:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"I'm sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands." Delete anyway. — Davenbelle 11:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Very cute. I take it someone will put it on BJAODN before deleting it? Grutness|hello? 11:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Check. J.K. 10:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nuuuuu!!!!! It's too cute! Keep it, PLEASE!!!!! --Kitch 14:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, after moving to BJAODN --Vik Reykja ♬ 17:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete and move to BJAODN. Redundant to {{attention}} and {{cleanup}}, and I seriously doubt this template will speed up the clean up of articles. Zzyzx11 22:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cute but ultimately unhelpful. Slac speak up! 01:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Compromise Put the picture of the Dyson on {{cleanup}}. --Kitch 12:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Check the template now Kitch, if that is what you wanted to see. Zscout370 15:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Unprofessional. Personally, it amuses me, and I think we need more humor around here -- but this is not the place for it. — Xiong (talk) 10:25, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a cute version of {{cleanup}}
    • Unsigned vote, couldn't locate its creator
  • Keep However unprofessional it may be, this template makes me laugh. AngryParsley 21:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Too unprofessional.
  • Delete, too close to a personal attack. Radiant_* 11:48, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • ROTFL, but delete JFW | T@lk 00:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Angel-stub and Template:Buffy-stub

Deprecated - replaced with the new (merged) Template:Buffyverse-stub. Grutness|hello? 13:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment — the two templates are already redirects, so a redirect vote is pretty much equivalent to a keep vote. Courtland 21:55, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Delete - no objections on WSS/criteria -- grm_wnr Esc 21:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Buffyverse stubs should be fine. Rhobite 22:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Any reason not to leave these as redirects? "Buffyverse" isn't exactly intuitive. —Korath (Talk) 22:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment — "Angel" could easily be misinterpreted as related to theology; intuition cuts both ways. Courtland 21:55, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • redirect--Henrygb 17:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete them all and impose blanket ban on fantasy universe stubs. — Xiong (talk) 10:27, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)




March 31

Template:Ie, Template:Eg

Quite useless. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 06:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Quite. -- Netoholic @ 07:49, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not think they are useful. Zzyzx11 23:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Would lead to patronising overlinking. Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Divbox and related

It is now over 168 hours (7 days) since this group of templates was nominated in mass, and the primary template tagged as a candidate for deletion. Per procedure, the discussion stage of this process has ended.

Outcome: No consensus has been achieved. The final tally of users who commented on the nomination is: 3 to keep, 4 to delete. This tally includes the creator and primary defender of the nominated template and also the nominator. The deletion is extremely controversial, and in accordance with our policy, the action directed is to remove this listing entirely from the workflow, archive the entire discussion to the nominated template's Talk page, and remove the {tfd} tag from the nominated template. See: Outcome (substage).

Please note that policy discourages the renomination of any template for a period of one month. We have surely enough work to do without reopening this running sore. Continued debate is discouraged, but entertained on the template's Talk page.

Strictly speaking, this note should not remain present in the workflow, and he who is bold to delete may do so. As a purely personal suggestion, he who performs this cleanup may wish to delay for a short period, and so note in edit summary, lest accusations be leveled of Orwellian manipulations, the avoidance of which is my reason for leaving this notice behind. — Xiongtalk 07:19, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

April 1

Template:01

Terrible use for a template. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

  • Delete --Vik Reykja ♬ 17:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That is terrible. Zzyzx11 18:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hold -- This is becoming a personal vendetta. Netaholic is simply listing every template I ever created. Ordinarily, I'd say fine, I'll take it inside to my user space. But this template is used in now-archived debate. Elimination of the template amounts to Orwellian editing of history. I'm willing to (a) move the template to my user space and (b) replace every instance of its use with a subst: inclusion. But I don't feel we should be forced into doing this work due to a personal agenda. — Xiong (talk) 18:39, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks to me like someone's joking use of a template ... a tool for vandalism perhaps? Courtland 19:13, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete see also Template:Bh. Grutness|hello? 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please note that my comment of 18:39, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) was "disappeared" -- how, I cannot say; but I've restored it. I object to any characterization of this template as a tool for vandalism -- that is just plain rude. As I wrote above, I'm happy to take it inside my user space, but there is nothing about the sentiment that ought to offend anyone. Please see where it has been used before imputing evil motives.
Let me make myself very clear: I agree that this template is trivial, probably unworthy even of remaining in my user space, let alone general template space. But this is not the way to handle this, nor does this have anything to do with the template itself. Any user, Netaholic included, might have suggested to me that I move this to my user space, and I'd have been happy to comply. To bring this up in this hostile manner is to retaliate for my comments on Netaholic's opinion piece.
Do you all wish to be cat's paws for Netaholic? Do you want TfD to become his, or anyone's, private battleground? Must we debate, take sides, and vote, regardless of need? Is there no longer any room in WP for direct, non-confrontational suggestions?
I ask you to vote this proposal down. I'll eliminate the offending template myself when I have the leisure to replace its every instance in Talk with verbatim text. This is not about a template; it is about one user's attempt to assume control of the template mechanism itself. Please hold your comment until you have read Netaholic's demands at Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, with attention to the objections raised by several users on the related Talk page -- and the manner in which Netaholic has tried to override the discussion. — Xiong (talk) 03:46, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Delete --minghong 08:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hopeless JFW | T@lk 00:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mockup

Poor use for a template. -- Netoholic @ 17:24, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

  • Hold -- I could defend this template, but I'd rather meet this vendetta squarely, and call it for what it is. In practice, I'd be open to deletion of the template itself and the substantive page upon which it appears.
This is not the place to work out personal differences between users. — Xiong (talk) 18:46, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete — I've made mockups before and used the Talk page for them; I think the Talk-space is the right place for these and not the main article space. Courtland 19:10, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Delete see also Template:Bh. Grutness|hello? 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Law connections

This has been abandoned by its creator and isn't used anywhere. Seems a shame since it's nice, but probably useless. Mozzerati 20:34, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:Bh

Abuse of template namespace for a single user's comments. —Korath (Talk) 22:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

From the same user who brought you Template:Mockup and Template:01, no less. Not quite vandalism, but testing the waters - which I'd put down simply to it being 1/4 rather than deliberate maliciousness (I'm sure Xiong wouldn't do that). Delete all three. Grutness|hello? 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalism is a serious charge, to be neither made nor taken lightly; nor does a typo or snarky hedge excuse it. I have used this template in exactly 3 instances. I ask you either to show that any one of these uses was in bad faith, or to retract your unwarranted charge.
In passing, I'll say, as before, that there is a much more direct way of asking me to remove templates such as these -- just drop me a line on my Talk page. I really don't care whether they are in main Template space or not; the template mechanism permits any user to include any page, anywhere -- did you know?
Let me rephrase this clearly, then - hopefully in a way that you will not find "snarky". If the same set of templates had come up by some anonymous user, I would have believed it to be possible vandalism. It did not - the templates were created by someone whom I trust as a Wikipedian, and as such, I believe there was a genuine purpose behind their creation. Given that it was the first of April, and given that there seemed no genuine purpose for them, I put that down as the reason. I still do not think that the templates are worth keeping, and as such, they should be deleted. I am willing to be swayed, however, if good and valid reasons can be listed here. That - as I'm sure you are aware - is the usual way for dealing with unneccessary templates. I am sorry that my original wording was clumsy, and apologise for any offence caused. Grutness|hello? 03:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I accept your apology. I created and used the template before 1 Apr (and I rarely use numbers to represent months). I did not fully understand your comment. My apologies. Please don't ask me to defend the templates as such. You can see how I've used them, but I agree that I might have done the same things in other ways.
Please allow me to state my views on the process of TfD. I participate regularly here and vote for many deletions, but I do not generally do so in the face of opposition -- I vote to provide a clear consensus for removal of obviously unnecessary, malformed templates, whose presence disrupts the project. I have not tried to vote out templates over the reasoned objections of their creators or boosters; and I have certainly not used TfD as a vehicle for personal vendetta. I participate in TfD as a janitor, not as a warrior. We are best able to do our work by keeping out of controversial and confrontational deletions -- they can be handled otherwise.
Netoholic is dragging in the good with the bad, in a deliberately confrontational manner. He has gone beyond TfDing templates I created; he's started to RfM my articles and rv my edits. He is currently in arbitration and I don't believe he should be humored in his bad-faith nominations. He has tagged templates in such a way as to disrupt Talk pages on which they appear and reverted entirely sane moves of those tags to respective Talk pages. Note that Korath, who nominated {{bh}}, did not feel it necessary to be so disruptive.
Netoholic is disrupting the project to make a point. I don't care about the content, since nothing on WP is ever permanently lost; I do care about the damage to our social structure.
This is what I ask, on behalf of all my silly templates (01, bh, and mockup): Vote to hold them until the review period of 7 days expires. Show all users reading this page that our work here is on behalf of the project, and not in service to trends, fads, and vendetta. When the comment period has expired and, in accordance with process, the templates removed from the workflow, I'll be glad to serve any who perceive them to be a threat by orphaning them and putting them up for admin attention.
Okay? — Xiongtalk 10:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Well, I'm still at a loss as to the purpose of the templates, but I can see no need personally to speedy them, so I'm fine with the seven day holding period. I can also see little technical reason why the templates can't be stored in Xiong's user space for use via "subst:", unless doing so contravenes WP rules (although it might set a fairly poor precedent). As to the apology - that's fine, it was my fault for commenting when I was tired and grumpy. Truce? :) Grutness|hello? 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(I wanted to read that as "tired and grunty".) Several of the people who welcome new members have custom welcome templates as subpages under their User page. I know that I've run into a few other examples as well, although I can think of any specific ones at the moment. BlankVerse ∅ 18:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Each one of those minor templates has a very minor purpose, which I shall not attempt to defend. I don't see they do much harm, but I agree they do little good, and I don't expect I'll bother to keep them in userspace. So long as the text is replaced on the Talk pages where used, history is preserved, and that is the only substantive issue.
You were grunty and I was crabby. Netoholic's nomination of {{divbox}} was such a blatant example of strangling the baby in the cradle. I lost my wa completely when he responded to my defense not with rebuttal, but with systematic nomination of everything he came across. I should admit that not Netoholic, but Korath, nominated {bh}, and I don't really perceive any bad faith, despite an inflammatory tone. Perhaps it was a case of jumping on the bandwagon, perhaps not.
In any case, I have no real beef with anyone except Netoholic, and I wouldn't have a beef -- a personal beef -- with him if he had none with me. He wrote an opinion and tried to get it accepted as policy; I disagreed loudly, and I was not the only one, but perhaps the newest and most visible. Most vulnerable? Well, he certainly provoked the reaction he desired, and I'm a fool to fall for it.
As a sign of good faith, I have orphaned, moved, and called speedy on {bh}. And I apologize for fuming at such length. — Xiongtalk 07:56, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

April 2

Template:Marylandother

One line of text created for one article. Not necessary. --tomf688 (talk) 04:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 04:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Delete --DuKot 21:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:HP ref workaround, Template:HP linked workaround, Template:HP unlinked workaround

Workarounds for the old 5-template limit, no longer needed. Goplat 03:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Docimg

Not useful, considering that if you click on any image you go to the Image: page. -- Netoholic @ 04:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

  • Sometimes you do not wish to go to the image page, nor do you wish to edit source in order to copy the location of the image page. This template is a general utility and bothers nobody. You are disrupting the project to make a point. — Xiongtalk 03:49, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete. Using templates because you're too lazy to learn proper mediawiki syntax shows a criminal degree of lazyiness, *particularly* when it lags the servers to use templates. →Raul654 04:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry; I actually thought I was being clever. I have searched the documentation very hard for existing solutions. Would Someone be kind enough to to demonstrate the correct syntax for inserting an image itself, followed immediately by a clickable and copyable link to its image page? It would be most preferable if the link would include displayed double brackets, so it could be copied directly from the page. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 09:26, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

April 3

Template:Current U.S. Senators

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

Template:Cleanup-importance

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

  • Variations on this theme: Template:Unencyclopedic, Template:Explain significance. —Korath (Talk) 10:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete. per Courtland. BlankVerse ∅ 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Partmerge

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

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

Template:Coordinate dms

Template:Coor d NW

Template:Coor d NE

Template:Coor d SE

Template:Coor d SW

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

  • Delete. Even the obvious ones deserve at least one vote. Gene Nygaard 13:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Powell and Pressburger

Utterly redundant with Category:Powell and Pressburger films - David Gerard 22:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) Okay, if it satisfies the interest in all articles in chronological order requirement, then it's fine by me - David Gerard 19:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Useful for exploring Powell and Pressburger films, see also Category:Hitchcock films and Template:Alfred Hitchcock's films. The category orients the reader from, say, Category:Films by director, the template orients them within the individual film articles. I see them as complementary, not pointless repetition. Jihg 23:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I'd vote for it to be kept as well. As soon as it appeared I saw that it was much more useful for going from one of their films to another. Much easier that having to go via the Category:Powell and Pressburger films. If anything, it's the Category route that's the harder to navigate although that does have its uses as well. SteveCrook 00:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep --DuKot 20:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 4

Template:Numberlist and Template:Disamb2

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

Template:Numberlist
  • Delete. This would be an OK template by me if there were not already a variety of Cleanup Templates. The activity that {{Numberlist}} falls under would seem to be copy-editing, and that's already dealt with by {{Cleanup-copyedit}} which would be put on the Talk page and followed with details as to the type of copyedits required. Courtland 02:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Template:Disamb2
  • Keep. This falls under the same general category as templates like {{moveto}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{split}} and provides a useable boilerplate opinion statement. Courtland 02:40, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Template:VfDis

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

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

Template:Potc

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

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

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 do not see this handy [+] tab anywhere on any page in my browser. Can anyone tell me how to get it? — Xiongtalk 09:15, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
    • In the Monobook skin, it's between the "edit this page" and "history" tabs. In Classic, it's on the quickbar under "Edit this page". In Cologne Blue, it's in the quickbar in the "This page" section. In the Nostalgia skin, you get it by switching to a different skin. —Korath (Talk) 09:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This has no business on article pages and we already have the same functionality on talk pages. →Vik Reykja 17:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep there is no [+] on Wikipedia project pages. Grue 17:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds like you should make a bugzilla: request for this enhancement. Even it that function is needed, we'd still never want to use a template for that. -- Netoholic @ 23:23, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the underlying reasoning for the creation of the template, but not with it being implemented as a template. In the case of very long pages that are not already sectionized, this is a stylistic and significant problem but one that should be dealt with in another manner. In the case of very long (or any) page that is already sectionized, addition of a section is already easily accomplished by opening an existing section and adding text to either the top or bottom of the edit box, depending on the desired position of the new section in the article. Courtland 00:17, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Template:Doctl

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

  • Oh, I think documenting code is a fine thing to do, and documenting code in a consistent format, so others can come along and work with it, finer still. But this template is broken and does not serve its intended purpose. (Please see Template talk:Doctl). Can anyone fix it? Thank you. — Xiongtalk 09:20, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Keep. The talk page advocates using subst: on it. I don't think the template is entirely necessary, but I don't have a problem keeping it around. →Vik Reykja 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Documentation of templates might well help to forestall unnecessary calls for deletion, or provide context for consideration of alterations to templates as circumstances and Wikipedia content changes. Courtland 23:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

April 5

Template:Tfd

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

{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,

The text below is generated by a template which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion for comments and voting.

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:

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="vfd" style="background-color: transparent; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0; border: 1px solid #aaa;font-size:xx-small;"> The text below is generated by a [[Wikipedia:Template messages|template]] which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion]] for comments and voting.</div>

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)

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:
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.
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 [1], 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)

April 6

Template:Deletetranswikied

This speedy-deletion-notice template was recently created by User:Sirkumsize [2]. 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)

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)

April 7

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)

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.

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.

March 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=11987572"