Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Henrygb (talk | contribs) at 01:47, 25 April 2005 (→‎[[Template:Nocontent]]: Keep). 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.

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. It also helps if you Bold your vote.

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 then the template should be deleted. You could also vote to Redirect to another template (usually more popular or with a better title). Sometimes an opinion will be to keep the template but fix some perceived problems with it, so some people add "Rewrite" or "Retitle" to their comments. Also, some people will specify Userfy, which means to move to a User's subpage.

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:

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

For clarity, this message should be added inside the box where applicable. 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 24

Template:Racist

I've been thinking long and hard about whether to nominate this template. Although racist content has no place in Wikipedia, and this template was created with the noblest of intentions, I consider it a little bit misguided. Here are my reasons:

  1. There's too much potential for abuse. It's far too tempting for someone to use a template like this as a weapon in a content dispute, as a way of attacking other editors or discrediting the article.
  2. There are other, much less problematic ways of dealing with racist articles, among them VfD and the POV, Disputed and TotallyDisputed tags. As a policy issue, content with a racist bias is already prohibited by the NPOV policy, as is other content with offensive biases.
  3. Whether or not this is intended as a "content warning" template, there's a clear trend against them, as there should be; they're inherently POV and Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.
  4. It's barely used, not even on Wikipedia:Template messages or similar pages. When it was first created, it appeared on a few articles created by a racist POV pusher, all of which have been deleted or significantly rewritten.

sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 01:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above. Zscout370 01:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant with Template:NPOV, which does the job in a better way. --cesarb 01:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing here not already covered by the NPOV template. Grutness|hello? 01:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CryptoDerk 01:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons summarized by proposer. -- Curps 01:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Medical

Another disclaimer template. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/April 2005#Template:Adult and Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer. Delete. --cesarb 14:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep — until some argument is given here. I've looked at the documents linked to, and much of what's in them is irrelevant to this case (the template isn't in screaming capitals, it isn't alarmist, etc.). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think mav has made the most pertinent argument already: the template is not going to be placed on some pages that should have it, and people are going to think that means that the medical advice is good. This opens us up to lawsuits. Rely on the disclaimers linked to from every page instead. (Plus this is yet another ugly obtrusive box that, if it survives, will be placed in articles and never removed. Feh.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this template is redundant with Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. The general disclaimer is linked from every page, and the medical disclaimer is one click away from the general one. Personally I think medical/legal advice disclaimers are probably unnecessary here, but for those who believe they are required to protect Wikipedia, they already exist. Rhobite 18:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There will be arguments about which pages deserve this disclaimer, it's redundant with the comprehensive disclaimers cited by Rhobite, and from a legal standpoint this disclaimer may expose us to additional liability if we miss putting it on any page related however remotely to medicine. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pieces-solocello-composer

As a result of a VfD listing which I have just closed, the articles List of solo cello pieces by composer: J etc have been merged into List of solo cello pieces. This navigation template is now redundant and has been orphaned. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 23

Template:Pfd

Blanked by its creator, and the explanation on the talk page didn't convince me (I fail to see how keeping it blanked prevents recreation, or why preventing its recreation is needed). Delete. --cesarb 00:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Note that said creator politely blanked the content when I asked him to. I'm happy to see it go, but it doesn't much bother me to have the blank one hanging around the Template space. FreplySpang (talk) 04:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Do the research before you vote. If you don't want to be tagged a deletionist fanatic, think before you act.
You think this comment is unjustified? Prove me wrong. Go look. Believe it or not, there is a joke page preserved -- "People for deletion". And yes, we need some humor around here. If you look that page over, you will see that {{pfd}} is specified -- obviously. The next step is to create the template -- which is just what this old fool did. Then, I tagged myself.
A user asked me to remove the template, in fear that some inconsiderate asshole might actually tag some other user's page with this joke, which would not be funny at all. I agreed, and moved it to my user space. The user wrote back, Thanks! That certainly was more pleasant than TFD. I'm glad I stopped to think before putting it there. Boy, it sure was -- and I'm glad, too.
Delete the template, and all information, all history about it goes away. Some other fool thinks it is clever to write the template and creates it anew. Perhaps that new fool will not have the discretion of an old fool to tag his own page; perhaps he tags another's. Disaster, or at least annoyance.
Keep the template, and there is not an actual incentive given the fool who sees a box with the words, "Go right ahead now and create this thing." Who knows, the lazy fool might actually transclude {pfd} in a victim's page and fail to understand why nothing is copied. A slightly wiser fool might even check out the Talk page and take a lesson.
Deleting the template solves nothing -- deleting most templates solves nothing, because the same misuse, abuse, or nonsense can be committed in other ways -- or in the same way all over again. Better to watch how templates are used, and rm the stupid uses of them -- oh, but while that accomplishes something, it does require actual work. — Xiong熊talk 04:27, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
If the template is recreated, it can be speedily deleted as a recreation. Just because someone might recreate it is not reason enough to keep it alive. Just because the same abuse might be done other ways is not reason enough to keep it alive.
The newbie you speak of will never see the box you speak of (Mediawiki:noarticletext), because simply nothing on the joke page links to Template:pfd. Even if he tries to use {{subst:pfd}}, as suggested on the joke page, he will not see a link to the template (as he would if the instructions were to use {{pfd}}). And if he is not a newbie, not only he knows how to create it, but he also knows that it's wrong, and why it's wrong. A vandal would not be stopped by a simple comment on a talk page.
If you are too worried about recreation, you can go ahead and add it to your watchlist. It works even if the page has been deleted, and will show any attempts at recreation.
--cesarb 13:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, recreation of deleted content. —Korath (Talk) 21:21, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not "worried" about recreation; it's just another good reason to keep it as is. Most of us would rather not have to fool with something again and again; we have other duties. A better reason is to preserve the Talk. Show me what harm is done by retaining the blank content. — Xiong熊talk 22:30, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

April 22

Template:Shahnama-stub

An appalling piece of hypercategorisation. there isn't even a Shahnama category, and the subject is quite adequately covered by other stubs. Not created nor wanted by WP:WSS. Grutness|hello? 11:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Secur-stub

Created by an anonymous user. Desperately vague, it could cover everything from Yale locks to Spy satellites. Not created nor wanted by WP:WSS. Grutness|hello? 11:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Japanese writing

A template doing the work of categories. Seems to be an attempt to make every kanji- or kana-related article link to every other kanji- or kana-related article. — Gwalla | Talk 02:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Agreed. There already is a category for this. adamrice 15:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppet

Violates WP:FAITH and WP:NPOV. LevelCheck 19:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proven sockpuppets are sockpuppets. They violate neither the good faith nor the NPOV policies. And there are lots of sockuppets around. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. When used correctly, they save the admins time and trouble finding out individuals. Plus, Sock Puppets are generally not allowed on Wikipedia (and if they are allowed, they have very close scruitiny). It does not violate the first one, since some sock puppets usually go around Wikipedia policies, and there is no "good faith" about that. The second one does not apply, since NPOV deals with points of views on topics, not on User's behaviors. Though people might have 10 pov's on a subject, but usually agree if someone is acting like a good person or a complete dick. Zscout370 20:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is used to mark users who have been proven to be sockpuppets. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • . . . and yet it says "Suspected sockpuppets of X", and in a number of cases there is no proof presented. (Reasonable suspicion, yes, but rarely anything conclusive.) Keep and remove any that are placed without some accompanying evidence; I've added a parameter to make that easy. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. --SPUI (talk) 23:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although it probably should be renamed to something less generic since it should only be used for known sockpuppets of banned or sanctioned users ("Known sockpuppets", "Abusive sockpuppets", "Sockpuppets of banned users"?), and there probably should be some better policy on when the template is used. BlankVerse ∅ 23:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 23:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, very useful. RickK 05:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Circus-stub

Not cleared through WP:WSS first. It has only two articles, and since there are only about a hundred total articles in Category:Circuses and all its subcategories, most of which would be better off in a different stub category even if they were stubs, there's no significant potential for growth. (It was also originally categorizing into Category:Stub. Eagh.) —Korath (Talk) 19:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Brittanyhill-stub

Created by the same user as Template:Template stub. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. How many hills in Brittany could possibly merit an article? And of those, how many would survive vfd unless already bigger than a stub? —Korath (Talk) 21:24, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Template stub

This has to be some kind of sick joke. —Korath (Talk) 10:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Less of the "sick" please! Maybe I worded it wrong. --Newnoise 21:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. --cesarb 03:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleet -- not a sick joke, just a joke. I laughed. Done. — Xiong熊talk 19:02, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

April 21

Template:Money-EU

The template is unnecessary and misleading. There is no need for fair use here. Copyright rules are stated at ECB. There are three cases:

  • Banknotes: "As long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes they can be used without prior authorisation of the ECB.".
  • Coins, common face: "All or part of the designs on the sides of the coins may be copied onto flat surfaces without need for authorisation (drawings, paintings, films, images, etc.), provided that the copies are in keeping with the original and are not detrimental to the image of the euro."
  • Coins, national face: The issuing country's rules apply

ECB also provides images that you can use accordingly. Hawklord 13:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

What image tag do you think these images should have? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to used ECBs/EUs own words:
  • Banknotes: CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat they cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes
  • Coins, common face: CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat they are not detrimental to the image of the euro
  • Coins, national face: some kind of fair use may be necessary, but Money-EU is too general. You have to check each country's rules individually.
Hawklord 20:57, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- No need to insert excess text. The offending reference to fair use is gone and an appropriate reference to ECB policy inserted. The template is fixed, and may go on its way. — Xiong熊talk 19:00, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form, but possibly make sure nothing's being improperly labeled? --SPUI (talk) 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 20

Old Hockey Templates that aren't being used

The above are all obsolete and no longer used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Keep. A hockey player doesn't remain a hockey player forever, he gets replaced with younger players. As younger players are added to WP, I can see a need for templates like these to flag articles on these younger players that are missing the associated data. slambo 20:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) slambo 11:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment The point is that they've never really ever been used. They just didn't catch on and some people objected to them, so they died a quiet death. This is just the burial. Kevin Rector (talk) 03:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Vote updated. slambo 11:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Game-cleanup

Do we need to start a long categorization of wikipedia articles that need cleanup, like in stubs? 500LL 13:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unnecessary as well as Scope creep. This is the sort of thing that should really be handled using a list, such as a To-Do List, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games (see Template:Gamebox). [For 500LL: This is not directly comparable to Stub-sorting WikiProject, because that project serves a dual purpose of classifying miscellaneous stubs into topics where they are much more likely to be unstubbed, and also to reduce the huge size of the stub and substub categories to improve database performance.] BlankVerse ∅ 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Previously nominated, in which keep was the result. ✏ OvenFresh² 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I searched for it in the log page but I didn't find it. Could you put a link here? 500LL 20:54, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

April 19

Old Business
Everything from here on down is old business; the current 5-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes.

Template:Nocontent

This template seems to largely duplicate Template:Nonsense, and is also not worded in a way that is supported by any WP:CSD guideline. Better to use {{db}}, or even {{delete}} and trust that the deleting admin will see for themselves that there is insufficient content. -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

  • Keep (obviously). Neutralitytalk 01:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This speedy criterion failed to pass the proposal to expand WP:CSD, and even if these get speedied anyway, they shouldn't have a specific template justifying them until doing so is accepted as policy. A Template:Nocontext would make sense, though. —Korath (Talk) 01:43, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Korath, and because "no content" is way overused in speedy tagging already. Kappa 01:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this template because speedy deletion Criterion 1 for articles reads: "Very short articles with little or no context", and this is a very common occurrence. This template is useful for articles that can't quite be called patent nonsense but are still candidates for speedy deletion due to having virtually nothing in the article. I also think Netoholic is far too quick on the trigger to post templates on here. I've got an unpleasant feeling that I've just been sucked into the middle of a pissing match between Netoholic and Xiong. Firebug 03:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I do believe Template:Deletebecause suffices, and don't see the need for this separate template, so I'm going to vote delete on the opinion that having too many templates is a Bad Thing. Bts Firebug, if you feel you're caught in the crossfire, you may want to read the WP:RFC about Xiong, or the WP:RFAr about Netaholic. Radiant_* 09:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, As an admin who frequently patrols , I'd prefer the number of standing articles on that page to be as limited in number as possible. The addition of new templates is confusing, and doesn't seem all that useful. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it duplicates {{deletebecause}}. BlankVerse ∅ 20:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Template:Deletebecause and Template:Nonsense suffice. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This template should be deleted because it contains no substantive content. --iMb~Meow 01:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have changed the words to be more in line with the policy. If people use it instead of a simple Template:Delete then it is useful. --Henrygb 01:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lake-stub

Not cleared by WP:WSS, this cuts across the current scheme which divides all geography stubs by region rather than by landform type. Can only make for confusion, since articles will be marked lake-stub rather than with the accepted country stubs. There is no Lakes WikiProject, otherwise it might have been viable. Grutness|hello? 23:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment only; no vote. Can't an article carry two stub templates? There are more than a few stubs that probably belong in a couple of categories, and this seems relatively harmless. Then again, if there isn't a Wikiproject looking to clean up these stubs, then the template isn't particularly useful, either. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They can, but a lot of Wiki-editors hate it when they do. And usually for them to carry a second indicates there's a very good reason. Since all geo-stubs have country/region specific stubs, it means that all lake stubs automatically have a minimum of two stubs. And there were already several with two - lakes on the borders between two countries, so the lake-stub adds a third. The big problem with this stub, though, is that some people will put lake-stub onto articles and no other stub, not realisin that the principal method of categorising geo-stubs is by location (since most geo wikiprojects are country-specific. I've already had to look through Category:Lake Stubs (sic) and added country stubs to several that didn't have them. Grutness|hello? 06:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Putting the additional stub templates on the talk page gives almost no detriment (it is still useful for stub expanders, and only loses utility for someone who comes across the page and says "hey, it's a stub, how do I find more like it?") but has benefit in keeping bloat down. --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please see the discussions elsewhere about why putting stub templates on a talk page is an unbelievably bad idea. To cut a long story short by just naming three of the many reasons, they don't get removed by editors who don't know they're there, continuing to clog up stub categories; they waste the time of stub editors, by requiring several pages to load for editing to take place (and then - in the case I've previously noted, more time still because they're more likely to have been previously expanded); and they're less likely to encourage casual editors to edit the articles in the first place, since they don't have the visible "please edit me" message (a slight effect, but lilely a significant one). Grutness|hello? 01:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Train-stub

Duplicate of Template:Rail-stub but without the category. slambo 13:27, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) Now a redirect to Template:Rail-stub slambo 20:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

April 16

Template:tram

Was only used on streetcar, where it was redundant with the text up top. --SPUI (talk) 11:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Is this a useful template? Couldn't it be replaced by a link in the "See also" section? Delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, not useful at all. It appears to have been the creation of someone who hadn't yet discovered categories (Category:Tram transport in this case). No harm at all in deleting. --iMb~Meow 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Template:Archist

Gives advice which is contrary to Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, which documents the alomost universal practice of archiving to a separate page. The creator of this has specific views about refactoring (see below #Template:Talkfix), but his ideas are not supported by common practice. The creator is of course open to make this suggestion using his own words, but it's poor use for a Template. -- Netoholic @ 08:26, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

  • Keep -- This doesn't give advice; it makes a gentle suggestion. Archival to history is the common practice, and the gentleman user employs it himself. If this is not of service to you, do not use it. This is just more of a certain user's vendetta. — Xiong熊talk 16:34, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
    • I think that only a few user talk pages are occasionally done like that, but almost never are article or project talk pages "archived to history". In any case, global templates should represent common practice. If you want to make this suggestion, do it by copy and pasting. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
I challenge the user to support his assertions. — Xiong熊talk 18:31, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Could this template be moved to Xiong's User space? I don't think it belongs in the Template namespace, since it doesn't seem to represent a generally accepted policy or practice. Failing that, it should be deleted—chatty personal notes don't need to be general templates. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The practice is generally accepted, though far from universal. Many prominent users archive in just this way. The challenge stands -- unanswered. — Xiong熊talk 20:36, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
Perhaps, but why does a personal note from you and about your preferred method of archiving talk pages need to be in the main Template space? If you want to trade appeals to popularity, I could assert that there are many prominent users who archive using other methods—especially the methods outlined in Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Did you read Template talk:Archist#Usage? Put yourself in the user's shoes. Some users -- among them, the gentleman who nominated this template -- have a Bad Habit of blanking their Talk pages. They don't leave links, they don't archive to another page, they don't read "How to archive a talk page" -- they just blank what they don't like. Perhaps their intent is evil; perhaps they are merely careless.
Give the user the benefit of the doubt; don't force him to defend his blanking. Gently suggest that he link to history. This satisfies everyone, and at worst, does no harm. If you aggressively attack him for blanking Talk, you only make an enemy, not a convert.
It's in Template space because it ought not be a personal note; but it should read like one. Edit it if you like, but keep it light, friendly, and chatty. Think psychology. You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. — Xiong熊talk 00:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not useful for writing normal articles. It is not useful for writing WP: articles. It is not useful for writing User: articles. In fact, it is only good for inserting half a page of text into a User_Talk: page. However, a message in a talk page should not spontaneously change when someone changes the template. This template, if used, creates large chunks of duplicate information, which misses the point. And lastly, there is nothing achieved here which could not be achieved by linking to a user-space article: the information in the template communicates no important information which the viewer should know before reading the article. Elektron 14:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  • Delete or at most userfy. Trying to instruct someone in any but the bluntest points of Wikiquette with a template message is going to be offensive. —Korath (Talk) 15:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:POV Fork

Question usefulness for this template, seem to be an opinion based, or could lead to, use with no explanation of what its placement is for, poss redundant with other templates. Also question on the basis that its creator has only had 19 edits prior to creation of template, of which several were edits claming POV, as well as the proposal for the SamuraiClinton RFA. Smells a bit sockish. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I created this template because POV Fork is a very common reason for articles to be listed on WP:VFD. I consider User:Boothy443's actions to be harassment. He had previously claimed that a legitimate WP:RFA nomination was "vandalism" because he personally disagreed with it, and engaged in personal attacks against me on his Talk page (calling me a "moron" and a "spade"). This nomination ought not be taken seriously because it is the product of personal animosity. As for the claims of sockpuppethood, they are too ludicrous for words. I have edited here for quite some times, and as I have stated to several different users, I chose to register so that I would not be treated as a second-class Wikicitizen. (My original choice for a userid was User:AllWikipediansAreEqualButSomeAreMoreEqualThanOthers, but this was rejected as too long.) LevelCheck 03:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this necessary? If an article is a POV fork, then deal with it. Nominate it for deletion, or merge it back where it should be (or apply the appropriate merge tags so someone else can do it, or start a substantive discussion on the Talk page). If necessary add the appropriate 'disputed' tags. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:merge or delete. Pwqn 14:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 14

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

This was already nominated, orphaned, and logged as being deleted, but it doesn't look like an admin "pushed the button" (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05#Template:Deletebecauseoncommons).

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 @ 16:01, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

  • Keep, useful. --SPUI (talk) 15:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. First, there is already a template called NowCommons, which tells fellow Wikipedians that the following image is now at the Commons. However, then a process begins that users have to change the links to the image at the Commons, which is time consuming. Once that is done, the image can be either put on IfD or speedy delete with the reasons of it being obsolete and also an orphan. Zscout370 15:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is for the specific case when the image on commons has the same name as the image here. --SPUI (talk) 15:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops. Well, there is a image/situation that I know of that exactly fits this profile. I will check this TfD and see what course of action should be taken. Zscout370 15:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clarify its purpose and use. --MarkSweep 21:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I added it to one of the pages listing templates when I created it, but it was quickly reverted. --SPUI (talk) 22:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have several images I've uploaded to en, and now reuploaded to Commons. I wanted 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. 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 (as Commons redundancy is not a criterion for speedy deletion), 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. This is not just a combination of those two templates, in my opinion. 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 23:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If it is images you have created, then it can be speedied, since your asking for your own work to be deleted. With other images, they go onto the IfD, since many images on there are being tossed because they are on the Commons now. Zscout370 23:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that they should be speedied. I, however, was unable to get them to be deleted. I even tried putting speedy tags on them explaining that I was the uploader, had uploaded to Commons under the same name, and wanted these deleted, but I think they sat for over 24 hours without being deleted. Perhaps no one deleted them because as far as I can see, requesting your own work to be deleted is not a speedy deletion criterion, and the page explicitly states that moving to Commons is not a criterion. Eventually I decided I might as well list them on IfD, since either way they were sitting with an ugly deletion tag but at least this way something would be done about it. How would I (or a normal user) go about getting them deleted in the future? — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Befriend an admin and see what happens :). But in all seriousness, I had the images I placed on speedy deleted within a span of 24 hours. I would try that process again, but if nothing works, then ask an admin as see what can happen. What you also can do is change the links from the image you want gone to the image that is going to be used from now own. I think we sould start moving this to my talk page. Zscout370 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • When I first made this template, I based it off the speedy template, and was told that moving to Commons is not a speedy criterion. So if it ever becomes one, it can be reverted. --SPUI (talk) 01:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • As I told Knowledge, what you do is make sure the new image is linked/embeded in all of the pages were the old image is at. Once that happens, the old image becomes an orphan and obsolete. Those two things are a criteria for a Image Delete, albeit time consuming. Zscout370 01:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Can't change the links if the image is uploaded to Commons under the same name (at least, I don't know how to do that). The link stays the same; you have to wait for the local copy to be deleted so that the Commons one shows up. The image to be deleted will never be an orphan, unless you temporarily remove the images from any articles that feature it, then revert once the image has been deleted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Depopulate by deleting all images that use it; then redirect to {{NowCommons}}. Alphax τεχ 07:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)Delete, limited purpose template. Only useful where the image has exactly the same name. {{NowCommons}} should suffice. Alphax τεχ 04:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- perhaps fix it up. — Xiong熊talk 17:01, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)


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)

  • This template could be safely moved to the creator's user space. I mean, we know that the 2006 Commonwealth Games are going to take place, and we can save the guy some work when we need the template later. Userfy. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, while I agree that the articles on VfD should be userfied, the template should be safe in the main namespace for now, since it won't be appearing on any pages. --bainer 00:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we can't userfy the template as well. Radiant_* 08:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason why we can't userfy it, but (more importantly) no reason why we should. -- P Ingerson 08:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keeping the templates, per P Ingerson is easier than a userfy. Of course, userfy won't be a big problem either. Sjakkalle 10:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is going to sound a bit silly, but keep, but as long as it isn't used. I think it belongs in the template namespace, but it shouldn't be used until we come close to the 2006 commonwealth games. There's simply too many red links and too little to fill them up with right now. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


April 12

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)

I'll inform the poster(s?) in the next couple of days that I was mistaken about the copyright condition of the image and whether they can verify fair use, otherwise remove the image - perhaps in favor of another. Schissel : bowl listen 03:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

{{PD-CAGov}} will need to go too... Alphax τεχ 07:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually I think California has released all its stuff to the public domain. --SPUI (talk) 21:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link-to list has decreased but is not yet down to zero. *groan* (Should just retag myself where possible, I guess. Especially since there's a whole category whose existence may be predicated on the mistake I made. May not, also, if the person who created it knows something about MN law no one here so far does, but...) Schissel : bowl listen 14:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted the State of Minnesota regarding copyright issues in regards to their site content. I will post what I find as well as fix the articles in question. Dennis Fernkes 00:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Appreciated. At least one of the affected images was set up by someone who hasn't been on Wikipedia in two months from their contr. page (this would be User:JTilly) and perhaps should just be deleted at that... Schissel : bowl listen 10:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hasid-stub

See related discussions and vote for Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Sefer-stub above.
  • 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)
      • From a stub-sorter's viewpoint, they take more working out as to what goes where than any other group of stub categories. They don't follow the usual clear cut distinctions that other, more well thought-out stub categories do. They're messy to use from that point of view. The convolutions of these categories are the main reason there isn't a separate Israel-geo-stub (although controversy about the borders was another consideration). Anyway, there aren't four. There's {{Judaism-stub}}, {{JewHist-stub}}, {{Israel-stub}}, {{Sefer-stub}}, {{HeBible-stub}}, and {{Hasid-stub}} - that's six messily tangled categories. Grutness|hello? 00:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Grutness: Well at least I agree with you about one thing, that they need to be controlled, that is why I have proposed this {{Hasid-stub}} and as of 18 April {{Sefer-stub}} (see [1]) for deletion. But the other four make sense I do believe, considering that they deal with a three-and-half-thousand-year/s-old subject! IZAK 09:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Sounds fine to me - the proliferation and overlap of stub categories is the main problem here. There seemed to be no clear delineation between {{Hasid-stub}}, {{Sefer-stub}} and subjects which would be covered by one of the other stubs. I'd say 99% of the confusion would be reduced by removing these two stubs, (or replacing one of the existing ones with Sefer-stub - see note below). Grutness|hello? 11:46, 18 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)
  • Delete. If this should go, so should Template:Sefer-stub. E=MC^2 T@lk 23:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I for one think there are a number of articles that center around that subject, and that the stub itself has been put to good useage so far. SF2K1 02:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It can be useful for people familiar with the distinctions, who will hopefully be expanding the articles anyway. Danny 15:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Question: Did this stub pass the stub creation process? — Xiong熊talk 18:58, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
There is no formal stub creation process. Asking at WP:WSS is highly recommended (to make discussions like this unlikely), but not obligatory. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And it wasn't even mentioned there. To answer Danny - it may be useful for the editors who know the difference, but it's not the editors who put stubs in separate categories. I doubt if more than a small handful of the stub sorters would know the differences. Grutness|hello? 02:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep My original reasons for creating the stub was that I realized there were at least 15 Hasidic stub articles. This is not a lot and does not seem to be a good reason. Yet recently users have been writing stubs about Hasidic dynasties. There are over 200 Hasidic dynasty articles that are yet to be written. When it comes the time when there will be so many articles on one subject than the stub will be very usefull. In the mean time we should keep it though, Hasidic articles are written quickly and always start as stubs, not full fledged articles. On the sorting issue. It may be a little annoying for sorting yet I think that the stub template is needed a bit now and will come in very handy on the future. ChanochGruenman 13:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Chanoch, while your heart is in the right place, you absolutely CANNOT say that because down the line there are "200 articles that are yet to be written", that it is therefore a "justification" for creating stubs now , which makes no sense at all. If we indeed one day in the future had that many articles we can begin to think about it. I can tell you now, that I have been the one who entered most of the Judaism/Hebrew Bible/Israel articles into the two largest "Jewish" categories of Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism as well as their sub and sub-sub categories, and I can tell you that on those huge subjects there are about 3,500 articles in total including all stubs. So at this point to start splintering and dividing up a field of relatively few articles will not be of help (as you can see how poor old Grutness is so confused already), and it will surely only confuse a very confusing subject. Unless you do not agree that Hasidism is part of Judaism??? So for now, let's keep Hasidic-stub subjects as part of Judaism-stub or Jewish history-stub subjects, please. IZAK 10:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. In an attempt to mollify some of the feathers that may have been ruffled by my earlier comments, may I try to explain. The general procedure with stub category creation is to first assay the need for a category based on one of two ideas: (1) there are a large number of extant generic stubs which would qualify for a specific category, or (2) there are too many stubs for an existing category to be viable, and therefore consider reducing it by making a natural subcategory for it. In general, WP:WSS uses rule of thumb figures of between 60 and 100 existing stubs as a minimum for a new category, and - except in special circumstances - is unlikely to split a category with under about 800 stubs. At all times, attempts are made to have the nw category fit in with the existing scheme, rather than cutting across two or more extant categories. Currently neither Judaism-stub nor JewHist-stub is on more than 200 articles, and, as Chanoch said, there are currently only some 15 stubs which would benefit from the new template. I think it highly unlikely the template would have been agreed to had it been proposed at WP:WSS. Furthermore, it does create confusion, by cutting across two current stub categories (many articles on Hasidic Judaism also deal with matters linked to Jewish history or Judaism in general - lets face it, the Hasidic/Rabbinical schism - if that's the right terminology for it - was a major event in both Judaism and Jewish history). Having sefer-stub suddenly appear caused enough confusion, without this one appearing as well. As to sefer-stub, I'd be quite happy to see it replace HeBible-stub, which it largely duplicates. Grutness|hello? 11:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Grutness: There would be a huge problem with having the "Sefer-stub" replace the "HeBible-stub" because the Hebrew word Sefer simply means "book" and so it could also be used to include non-religious and non-Biblical books and it would therefore NOT make any sense to combine the "Hebrew Bible-stub" under the "Sefer-stub", as its present creators have a very narrow Orthodox Judaism view of the word sefer. IZAK 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hm. I was thrown off by the wording of the template which seemed to imply it could only be religion-related texts (specifically Judaism-related texts). Would it be better to combine the two into one new template simply for Jewish religious texts? If not, and it is for books in general, then it compounds problems by tanging itself up with book-stub and I would recomment deleting it. Grutness|hello? 06:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It may be an idea because we do have Category:Jewish texts that is quite all-inclusive which does have many stub articles of course. Simutaneously, many of them do legitimately fit into the Template:Judaism-stub as well. Whereas the Hebrew Bible-stub also functions as an acceptable demarcation between (1)Judaism's one and only Hebrew Bible -- and -- (2) Christianity's name for it of the Old Testament because of its (Christianity's) New Testament. It's a bit of a minefield, I must admit. IZAK 09:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • ...which also brings up the problem of whether an article on an Old Testament character (say, Shem) gets Christianity-stub or HeBible-stub - but that's just adding more confusions. Grutness|hello? 10:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No the case you mention (of Shem) is not confusing, because it is a fact of reality that Judaism and Christianity are ENTIRELY different religions, Judaism came first, it is Christianity that adoped some of Judaism's texts and not the other way around (so there will be some similarities because of that), and as long as a link, or category, or stub is working in good faith recognizing the differences between the seperate faiths, then two (i.e. one Judaism-related and one Christianity-related) different Wikipedia links/categories/stubs will always reflect truth and therefore will always be valid. IZAK 07:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Topic too narrow to be distinguished from existing stubs DDerby 06:27, 21 Apr 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)
  • 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)
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • Comment As a compromise, couldn't we just use something like CS-geo-stub or CR-geo-stub, like in NI-geo-stub, BiH-geo-stub....?Lectonar 08:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Or Cz-geo-stub... yes, that would work (though there would still be a problem with category names). Grutness|hello? 07:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please ignore any statements made on this topic by NoPuzzleStranger. He is trying to declare his personal ignorance a rule. Czechia is not a neologism, but a normal word and all relevant English language experts have confirmed that it is the only correct version in the English language. The word has been used since the Middle Ages (it is even written in the St. Vit Cathedral in Prague) as what is called by experts the territorial designation for the Czech territory, and an abrreviated name for the Lands of the Bohemian crown/Czech Republik etc. (just like France, Germany, Slovakia, Poland etc.). It is derived from the Latin Czechia (hence the CZ and CH), just like Moravia or Bohemia. Is is nowadays used in some English encyclopaedias (those with better information), on maps, in the offficial UN country list, by Czech authorities, e.g. in the US government analyses of Czechoslovakia of 1987 (-as a proof) and by all those who have basic information in this field. The English "Czechia" is also prescribed by all Czech regulations and norms regarding geographical names. The word is not really disputed in Czechia itself (the article we have here as a link in Czech Republic is just the author's personal opinion), there are only some people who are used to the older names that were relevant in the 1980s – namely Czechoslovakia and Czech (Socialist) Republic (as a constituent republic of Czechoslovakia – hence the "republic"!). Nevertheless the Czech equivalent exists since the Middle Ages as well, it is in the Dictionary of the Czech language (1978) etc and is used in TV news , newspapers, taught in schools etc.. Even if we admitted that the name was disputed in Czechia itself, the problem in Czech is completely different from other languages – the problem is that in Czech the word for Czechia (Česko) is very similar to the word for Bohemia and at the same time identical with "Czecho-". (which sounds like an "unfinished" Czechoslovakia), but that has nothing to do with English or other languages. In sum, there is absolutely no reason for not using Czechiat, it is even ridiculous and an error not to use it (which is unfortunately the case in most English-language media). Juro 23:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that User:Starky, who has voted on this and is outspoken on topics related to Czechia/Czech Republic, seems very likely to be a sockpuppet of NoPuzzleStranger. Grutness|hello? 06:40, 21 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)

TfD was added only on April 14.

  • 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)
  • Delete...hey wait a minute? MAA is a three letter acronym?! Who'da thunk it? -Frazzydee|✍ 00:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it merely states the obvious -- Kaszeta 17:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be split up into two templates: one about TLAs and including Category:TLAs and disambig, and the other about two-letter combinations and including Category:$1 and disambig. However, that should all be done automatically, doing it manually is a waste of time. --Joy [shallot] 11:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant w/ cat. Also obvious w/o template. —Lowellian (talk) 19:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the advantage over the use of the categories is that it invites to be thorough with the list of possible expansions. Personally, I don't like the current layout as I find centering more suitable for titles or short list than for texts. Alternatively, we could include some text in a page footer that includes {{disambig}}.
  • Delete. - Maybe we can replace this template and {{disambig}} with {{TLAdisambig}} for all TLAs, and {{2LCdisambig}} for all two-letter combinations.

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)
        • The templates created from January 2006 to December 2025 aren't meta-templates. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Netoholic, please really take a look. Template:MayCalendar2006Source is not a meta-template in any way. It's actual template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Templates for "Leap year starting on tuesday" or "30-day month starting on friday" (with parametrization for which month and year it is) have the advantage of being reusable for each and every year in the Gregorian calendar, obviating the need for hundreds of templates for each individual month and year therein. Radiant_* 09:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but, there's so much parameter passing for those templates. And people are lazy. Without these templates, any page using a calendar to display the current month must change using the "Leap year starting on Tuesday" or whatever templates. What happens if I want to display only one month and have it change every month? I can't use {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} anymore. I would have to manually update and figure out which template to use every month. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Numbers (360s)

Also, Template:Numbers 1 E9 - 1 E10, Template:Numbers 46660s, Template:Numbers 1 E9 - 1 E10, Template:Numbers 7740s, Template:Numbers E0, Template:Numbers E1

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


Template:Numbers (3 E2), Template:Numbers 200-300

(split from the above, since not all templates are equal) Radiant_* 09:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

    • 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)
  • The template I meant is Template:Numbers_0-1000. I did mean to add it earlier but it slipped my mind (sorry), it's added now. My reasoning is that most numbers >200 do not have (or need) their own articles, so a template that is mostly redlinks is not very useful. Hope that helps. Radiant_* 09:00, Apr 14, 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)
  • Delete, per Korath. BlankVerse ∅ 01:23, 20 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)
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

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. Alphax τεχ 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=12774778"