Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:33, 29 April 2006 editMyrtone86 (talk \| contribs)3,061 edits →[]: spelling← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:38, 29 April 2006 edit undoMyrtone86 (talk \| contribs)3,061 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:

	I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!] 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(		I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!] 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

			====]====

			This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.] 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

Revision as of 14:38, 29 April 2006

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Header Plaese click here to start a new debate

Debates

April 29, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User antifa-01

Template:User antifa-01 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominated for speedy deletion but evident reluctance to do so. Editors bickering on talk page, in edit summaries and on template itself about Jimbo's intentions and whether you're a fascist if you delete the template. Note: technical nomination, so no opinion from me, but feel free to have a go on my talk page if you must. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: Pro-Communist and Anti-Fascist or Anti-Communist and Pro-Fascist. Advocating the destruction of one group, and violently depicting it, while supporting another. This seems pretty inflammatory and divisive to me. --Khat Wordsmith 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Keep: I see nothing wrong with it. Theres nothing inflammatory about it, well in my opinion anyways. It's just a stand, like you either beleive in God or you're an antheist, you either like bacon or you don't, you either like facism or you don't, you're either one or the other. -- whipsandchains 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Delete Since the nominator is afraid to mention why this technially violates WP policy, I will make his case for him. It's divisive, inflammatory and INAPPROPRIATE for Misplaced Pages. Should we have a template kicking a hammer and sickle now to "balance" this one? NO! But that's where this could lead - though I note a pro-fascism box was quickly "taken care of" when someone created one as a way to make a point. The political merits of this or any other template aside, and forgetting the 'fairness' argument, Misplaced Pages is simply not a soapbox, and support for or against Fascism has nothing to do with this "anti" template existing here. It's appalling to think templates are being "saved" because they are "correct" in their political viewpoints, but that's what I've been reading about why this box is so precious. Everyone should please review WP policy before jumping on the "save the 'correct' template" bandwagon. Nhprman 00:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- And I should note that while I abhor fascism and fascists, I never once voted up an attempt to delete their userboxes. Why? Because there's bigger things to worry about on Misplaced Pages than fascists ability to put up a Kick Me sign on their own backs -- like the fact that racists routinely vandalize pages and get away with it, and that the hostile environment this fosters has never been properly dealt with.

If someone wishes to have a mouthbreathing anti-communist userbox, I say that's fine and dandy. We've already got pro-capitalist and pro-Objectivist userboxes, and those are already pretty close to that. --Daniel 19:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not afraid, merely disinterested - I was clearing out the speedy delete category, this template had been there for hours and had no reasons given under the existing criteria for a speedy delete. I remain disinterested in the reasons for deletion or keeping this template, but I'd rather not be misrepresented by either side. Thanks. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 11:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete, I think people could take a lot of offence at this DannyM 09:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Offensive, to whom? Advocates of pogroms and genocide? People who dispatch thugs to go after "sick art?" They're already offended by the fact that Misplaced Pages allows for editing by Jews, people of color, trade unionists, et al. Why the hell should a project built around freedom of honest inquiry be worried about the opinions of those who oppose freedom, honesty, and inquiry? --Daniel 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The same argument can be made against thuggish Communism, which has killed or ensalved hundreds of millions, so where's your anger against that political philosophy? This is why Misplaced Pages is no place for narrow political crusades. Deleting all political Userboxes will bring that honesty and freedom you seek back to the project. It's getting lost now in these Userbox wars Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You just answered your own question. Why should a project built around freedom say it's okay to think one way and it's not okay to think another? Last I checked, isn’t that what you've been saying fascists do? Say everyone who doesn’t agree is evil? --Khat Wordsmith 19:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

- Re-read DannyM's comments, and my own. His argument is that fascists will be offended by this userbox. That would make sense, were Misplaced Pages a fascist website, censored along the lines fascists dictate. It isn't -- and if Misplaced Pages were ever censored along fascist lines, then say goodbye to at least half of the over one million articles on English Misplaced Pages.

This userbox is simply a token acknowledgement that there are those Wikipedians - of many backgrounds, beliefs, and interests - who aren't going to stand idly by as fascists attempt to use thuggery to intimidate the rest of us into submission. While I strongly wish Jimbo and company would actually bother to look at what opening the door to fascists' participation in the project actually means (e.g., the alienation of a good number of people), this userbox does nothing to do anything beyond stating a common, honest belief. --Daniel 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether any one political philosophy is "wrong" or "right" is beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages and this is not the place for Wikipedians to "battle it out." The entire discussion is moot, and there is no "right" to express one's belief in, or opposition to, a certain political philosophy. WP policy states: "Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech." It's not a question of defending or attacking Fascism, it's a question of whether the template should be gathering supporters and opponents in the way these always do (and we're seeing it here in this argument.) It - and all other political Userboxes - are taking users away from the core purpose of the site. Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Feel free to beat a strawman until your knuckles are bloody. This is not a matter of "unregulated free speech" on Misplaced Pages - this userbox appears nowhere other than user space where it does absolutely nothing to work against Misplaced Pages's mission. I've never argued for unregulated free speech on Misplaced Pages, and to the opposite I wish people like you would actually bother to regulate the type of racist garbage that gets posted daily in the articlespace. You don't - and that's why people post up userboxes like this. --Daniel 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The straw man is the attempt by some to smear all those who oppose this Userbox as a racist. Bad move, and they need to assume good faith. Your comment that this appears "nowhere other than user space" is incorrect. This is a template, and is in template space, making it subject to community discussion and consensus. However, put the raw code on your Userpage and very, very few will even care to comment, and the community aspect of the box goes away. But if it's going to be a tool to "organize" other anti-Fascists, be warned that pro-Fascists and anti-Communist boxes will be allowed, too, and selective censorship will not be tolerated because, as we hear ad nausem (only when it suits people's wishes, apparently,) "Misplaced Pages is not censored." Nhprman 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

~~**Strong Keep~~, “The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” I can see the point of NPOV thing and I understand if you dont want to offend anyone but come on, there are some things you KNOW that you have to take stand against. Besides, how many articles get vandalize with racial slurs and attacks on an hourly basis here on Misplaced Pages? The people you are so afraid to offend doesn't seem to mind offending others now do they? Why not just remove all the Holocaust articles since according to them it never happened that way it' ll be really NPOV. -- whipsandchains 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User's second vote on this nomination. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

- - That's right, we all have opinions. But thinking - no, KNOWING - that your own opinion is right and other peoples' are wrong, and that all material you think is "wrong" should be erased isn't going to work so long as someone else holds a different opinion. That's why this project is supposed to be done in NPOV, so that all the differing opinions have a chance to be recorded and documented so that all the information the differing opinions will let in are let in. People who aren't fascists (the vast majority) can put in information about the holocaust - but there are a few people out there who just, gosh-darn-it, KNOW that that information is false. Are you saying we should let them delete those pages? No, they can put in a different page that some people have a different opinion. By proudly proclaiming that people KNOW that you are right, what message are you really sending? Everyone's point of view is the same as yours? If that was true, no one would have created this button which attacks the POV of another group. Of course, I could have completely misread what you had to say, please inform me if I am mistaken. --Khat Wordsmith 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Perhaps the use of the word you in that part of first sentence was misunderstood, I was refering to myself in a third person view (poor choice of word I admit). And gosh-darn-it, you just made my point. Why delete something you don't agree on? Like you pointed out, instead of deleting the holocaust article, they made another one right? Then why delete this template? You can make a pro-facist template and put it on your userpage for all I care, I can't force you to see things my way, thatd be rather hypocritical now woudn't it? This template here just represents the fact that I am antifa. It's not like I go around and vandalize articles or userpages with this template, its just used on my userpage (where I'm suppose to put my POVs correct?) to indicate that I am anti-facist. -- whipsandchains 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      - You are very, very, very right. One can make a pro-fascist user-box and put it on his or her user page. You are 100% right. Just as someone can make an anti-fa userbox and put it on his or her own userpage. But the fact is that, for some reason I don't quite understand, I'll admit, when someone makes a template of something like that, it gets deleted. I've watched all the pro-fascist user boxe templates get deleted while the anti-fascist userboxe templates stay were they are. I'm just saying either keep both (which is very unlikely to happen) or remove the templates of both and allow people to use their own on their own user page or someone other than Misplaced Pages. Personally I'm over the opinion where the pro- and anti- anything userboxes should be able to remain as templates, but there are people, as you rightly said, who are malicious about these sorts of things and will go to great lengths to change said templates. Unlike vandalism on articles, towards which Misplaced Pages should be putting it's efforts into in order to stop, I think it's a better solution to nip this problem in the bud and, again, as you rightly said, have people who feel strongly about certain things to make their own userboxes for their own user pages.--Khat Wordsmith 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason these Userboxes are being deleted as Templates is because, as Templates, they are being used to round up people of like interests who then act in concert with others, and that makes this into a social networking site, which, according to Jimbo and others, Misplaced Pages is NOT. Again, policy states: Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. By creating political templates, and gathering "supporters" to "save" Templates that are popular from being threatened, and "rallying" forces to delete unpopular or opposing ones, this has become the focus of the project for many Users. And that's not the reason why we are here, theoretically. Nhprman 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete frankly this is a t1 speedy. But since people keep saying these things are better debated here, let's see if tfd can do it's work. If not, we can speedy it later. --Doc 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, offensive template, this can be speedied. --15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, if this template is offensive, inflamatory and divisive then surely that opens the path to deletion of most userboxes, personally i'm offended by organised religion, so y'know. Feel free to ignore the userbox, just like you'd ignore someone who favoured antifa's approach (Johnny Copper 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
If it simply stated the user supports something, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but right now it goes on to make a controversial political statement in connection with it, so I'd say Delete unless it is changed. Just another star in the night 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages.--Ssbohio 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- You see, that's the problem. It is quite possible for a user to edit in a NPOV way on articles that he/she has an apparent POV on. I don't really have a problem with these kind of templates in general, but often they are used to factionalize like this and add to the myth that everyone comes here to edit in their POV rather then improve articles. Just another star in the night 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  - But, the same fact set can be used to justify the opposite view. If we go about restricting people's expression of their POV, the issues they care about, then we perpetuate the myth that those who come here are disinterested NPOV angels. Since it is, indeed, possible, even almost certain, that a person with a POV can do NPOV work, it follows that a person with an admitted POV has an additional reason to make sure his work is above reproach. In all the thinking I've done on this issue, I don't see a disclosed POV as the negative others do, especially in comparison to the alternative, where the same people have the same points of view, but keep them hidden. It's axiomatic that withholding information leads to less accurate judgment. More information means better decisions.--Ssbohio 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If people have a POV, and it appears in their editing, it will be obvious whether or not they have a User box on their User page, and POV editing will be reverted. Users without boxes are judged on their editing abilities alone, as it should be. "More information" on a User's POV has created the appearance of POV even where it doesn't exist, and has lead to escalating User box Templates that have been more and more insulting and inflammatory, causing these debates. So in practice, the "knowing more helps us" theory has been shown to be flawed. Furthermore, the real myth here is that Misplaced Pages is a place of unrestricted free speech. It's not, especially on User pages, which are not designed to be personal Webspace. (see WP:NOT) Nhprman 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And the corollary is that the absence of a userbox somehow eliminates the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican, a Democrat a Democrat, and an "antifa" an "antifa," regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that the lack of a template doesn't eliminate the user's belief. That's an easy one to agree with. Also, I agree that trying to police user pages is not something we should be doing, other than in the case of the odd person who notes the he is a pedophile or admits to loving the idea of mass murder. That's not to say the WP community has no right to set policy for userboxes, or even user pages. The key point I'm making is that as long as these boxes are Templates, and are being used to link like-minded people together to create "tribes" that contend with one another in a POV fashion over these boxes, then they are a problem, because Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a social networking site. If the raw code of all boxes were to be placed on userpages, 90% of that particular problem vanishes, because they are no longer Templates in the template space, but simply code or text on a user's page. There is another level of the issue that says that it's not a good idea to make POV political/social statements on the user page, in any format, because they imply that these biases will likely be transfered to the articles the user edits. But that's not to say I believe we should ban people from saying "I'm a Catholic" or "I oppose Fascism" on their pages. I just think it's a bad idea, generally, and I'd urge people to consider not doing it (as Jimbo himself has done on occasion.) Nhprman 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unencyclopedic template. Also meets T1. --Cyde Weys 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant Delete. Disagree with Cyde's reasoning, but it does meet T1, which seems to be policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A definitive decision needs to be made whether or not all userboxes expressing POVs need to be moved to userspace. Dragging them individually through a deletion process is a waste of time, as they can potentially multiply more quickly than they can be produced. Until then, they must all be allowed, at least where not personal attacks. I find a lot of things offensive. I find the babel template that proclaims that everyone should speak American English offensive. This kind of petty squabbling is poisoning and dividing Misplaced Pages. Mgekelly - Talk 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is somewhat labour intensive to delete one at a time and that some standardisation of policies must take place. Whilst the issue is beng decided, our best judgement must prevail, taking each case as it comes. Cheers. Nhprman 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (an American who doesn't mind the Queen's English)
Your reasoning rings true, but unfortunately that's not policy. And practically speaking, if the template isn't deleted here, it'll be speedied. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reluctant Delete per Arthur Rubin and per (am I actually saying this?) Doc. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep there is a big difference between pro and anti fascist. it's not inflammatory.
Keep It is not offensive--Hattusili 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Well....it appears from the word choice and the actual article behind it that its sort of supporting violence, and you know, that's just not right. Homestarmy 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. We all know that this isn't what Misplaced Pages is for. This kind of campaigning makes a joke out of the idea of getting together to create a neutral encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Debating this one template is not the way to get it deleted. Please discuss this at Template talk:Start LUL box.--Sean Black 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Waterloo & City Line link

Template:Waterloo & City Line link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Just my two cents but wouldn't just be easier and more reliable (as newer users might not know effects of altering templates) to type in the text into the railbox?, Im going to try this line first to gauge opinion, as its a small (and atm closed) line. Thanks DannyM 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete See reasons above DannyM 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom. --Dominic 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep - this is part of the navigation box template which takes the text "Waterloo & City Line" as a parameter and from that looks up Template:Waterloo & City Line colour and Template:Waterloo & City Line link automatically. If we delete these we would need to have an extra parameter on the template. Not to mention the obvious disambig advantages should a line article be moved. ed g2s • talk 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep; either we change all of them, or none - don't try to change established ways of doing things by an artificially time- and scope-limited deletion debate, please. James F. (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per ed g2s's argument. It would be precipitous to delete one template when it would break the current operation of others.--Ssbohio 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment, admittedly deleting just one template of a group is stupid, but I was using this one to see how people felt and then we could think about deleting the other templates of a similar nature (as written in opening para), for example for the railway line boxes (i.e. those that operate normal rail services), link to the railway line through an IW link, and that seems to work well enough (on a bigger system) so why use two systems when one works perfectly? DannyM 08:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all - completely pointless to have this link as a template. Mgekelly - Talk 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Entirely pointless: what's the point of having a template that's the exact same length as the original link? If it was unbearbly long, or was a piped link that woudl take a lot more time to type out, I could see its purpose, but otherwise it's rather pointless. Hbdragon88 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read my explanation. The only parameter that is passed to the navbox is "Waterloo & City Line". This is then used to lookup both the link and colour. Compare:
line = Waterloo & City Line

with
line_link = ]

line_colour = {{Waterloo & City Line colour}}

do you think we should edit hundreds of pages, just to make the templates more complicated to use? ed g2s • talk 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Either way, deleting this template is not an option, this should be discussed on Template:Start LUL box, or somewhere more suitable. If there is a consensus to change the system (which is unlikely), then you can nominate the templates for deletion. As it stands, they have a well defined and essential use. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Republican

Template:Republican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's only purpose is to interpose an associated image. That image, however, is fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, unfortunately. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy. —Markles 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Republican) and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming tribes of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. I'm also inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting.

This is not a Userbox. It does not and is not intended to live in userspace. It applies to candidates for (US) office, presumably on a page about the election or the office, rather than about the candidate. (It's unnecessary as applied to a candidate or officeholder.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I've allowed my comments to get off track. This, however, is an unecessary template. Simply writing the word "Republican" does the job just fine. Nhprman 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Democratic

Template:Democratic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's only purpose is to interpose an associated image. That image, however, is fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, unfortunately. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy. —Markles 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Democrat") and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming "tribes" of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. But the fact they are stored in Template space, and are therefore put into "categories" that are abused by some who want to "meet other people who believe X" then it's a warping of Misplaced Pages's mission, and it's vital that this aspect of the problem be dealt with. As for your other point, I am inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting. Nhprman 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Well, if its really fair use, its kind of illegal for them to be here in a way I guess :/. Homestarmy 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy delete criteria G7: author's request Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:MAGovernors2

Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom --Dominic 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles

Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A navbox for an odd assortment of pages that seem to have no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Some of the listings are professions (e.g., system administrator), some are job titles (e.g., webmaster), and others are user privileges (e.g., IRC channel op). Fixing this navbox to be inclusive of the current links and also NPOV to include other similar articles would make it enormous. There are better-defined categories to do this job. --TreyHarris 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

delete, Silly, meaningless grouping. Night Gyr 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, stumbledon this recently and was immediately reminded of the whole Misplaced Pages:Branchlist fiasco. Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

delete per above --larsinio (poke) 20:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Contra

Comment. Not taking a position here, but I'm alarmed in reading the log of the earlier TfD that the prevailing consensus was that it imposed too much server load to repeat the same image many times on a page. That's just not true. Any image will only be loaded by the browser once per page, no matter how many times it is used. For example, the bullets on this page are an image, and it doesn't cause the servers any problem. --TreyHarris 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Just to be picky, the bullet points are HTML, not images. Remy B 16:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Actually, the bullets used are from here. If you see the CSS stylesheet, it uses this:

ul {
   ...
   list-style-image: url('bullet.gif');margin-left:1.5em; margin-right:0; margin-top:.3em; margin-bottom:0
   }

"ul" stands for unordered list, or bulleted list. So, in the HTML <ul> will automatically add the bullet GIF for every list item (<li>). But the GIF image is only 50 bytes large, as opposed to 762 bytes the image the template uses is. —Black and White_TALK

Delete adds extra linking processing that is not necessary --larsinio (poke) 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete First of all, if Template:Oppose and Template:Support were deleted, this should be deleted to. This makes no sense, "Contra". "Oppose" is more reasonable. 67.81.33.18 19:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

April 28, 2006

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Circeus 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Unamerican and others

Didn't these userboxes get deleted a long time ago? I thought I remembered them from somewhere.... Homestarmy 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete and delete any future un- and anti- boxes degrading ANY nation or its flag. These are divisive and inflammatory to the extreme, and is meant to be. WP is not a soapbox. Keep political bias out of this project, please. Nhprman 16:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Bullshit, there is absolutely nothing offensive about them. --Dragon695 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ancient Greece topics

Strong keep, it's for navigational purposes, not data collection. While at the moment it is not heavily used. it most certainly can be, and provided it makes it through this TfD, I'll ensure it is. PoptartKing 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I shall declare I have a vested interest in the template as I created it. I am aware of its failings as I listed on the talk page. It is however, not an indiscriminate collection of links (see the Ancient Egypt template, my inspiration for this one). --Knucmo2 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, is used in this case for navigational purposes as stated by PopartKing above. This template can be improved. --Andy123(talk) 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

keep, lest you want to delete Template:Puerto Rican topics and Template:Canada topics, to name a few? Circeus 03:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you; I had not encountered those templates, which are as bad as this one, and unattractive to boot. Septentrionalis 19:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Interesting, AFAIK, there are ones for every country. Circeus 23:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
keep, per PoptartKing--Aldux 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Telex 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Kamikazi2 12:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per reasons stated above. --Dominic 17:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, gives a good overview of topics in this field. Structure is good. --Cyde Weys 02:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is a useful template for navigation purposes. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep,, is a useful template becuase it makes it easy to add city-states to Ancient Greece. User:miquonranger03
Keep Relevant list. Valentinian 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per reasons stated above. SCHZMO ✍ 13:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Epochs

Delete Of the few pages which include the only on topic inclusion is Root Race, there seems to be an edit war with the image in the template with some claiming fair use. It could be subst: into Root Race and removed from other pages. --Salix alba (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Star-planetbox primary

Template:Star-planetbox primary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Star-planetbox secondary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Star-planetbox end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template sequence for providing extrasolar planetary system information has poor semantics: the first planet in the list is handled differently to all subsequent planets, which could be confusing for editors and makes maintenance of the list more difficult (e.g. if a planet is to be inserted before the first one in the list). The table markup in this case is more concise and simpler to use than these templates, so I suggest subst:ing the instances in articles, then removing this template sequence. Chaos syndrome 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. I Lov E Plankton 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - agree with Chaos Syndrome that table markup is simpler for this. Worldtraveller 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: I made this template so all stars with extrasolar planets won't be different. With over 175 star's with planets, always using an open infobox could be not the same as the others. But if you don't like something, fix it! — Hurricane Dev o n @ 19:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Eluchil404 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - this kind of table is probably unnecessary for single-planet systems; it is more useful as a quick overview of the planets in multiple systems where the planets have separate articles. Also the table caption is probably unnecessary too, given its placement in the "planetary system" section of articles, it is fairly obvious what the table is describing. Chaos syndrome 18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup—The standardization that this brings is a good thing. Ardric47 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - problem is here the standardisation comes at the cost of bloated and confusing markup. I've been thinking it may be better to just have a template to insert the table header row and then use table markup to add the rest of the rows, which I think is a better solution than a complex template sequence or creating n templates for systems with up to n planets. Chaos syndrome 09:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the creator of this template has now added {{Planetbox-1p}}, {{Planetbox-2p}}, {{Planetbox-3p}}, {{Planetbox-4p}}, which makes this template sequence redundant anyway. Chaos syndrome 21:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was all deleted, no userpages broken. --Cyde Weys 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Babel-48

Template:Babel-48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There was a previous TfD for all of the fixed size Babel boxes, but it was withdrawn due improper formatting and concerns about users from other language Wikipedias being unable to copy their language boxes here. Despite those issues the TfD was trending delete until it was closed. This new TfD only applies to Babel-21 through Babel-48... all of which are used on fewer than ten pages each, less than fifty pages in total, and for the majority of them no pages at all. All of these can be replaced with {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}, {{Babel-N}}, or {{Babel-X}} to provide the same functionality. This TfD does not include Babel-1 through Babel-20 because they are in more common use and might theoretically be needed for other language 'transplants'. Note that I also changed Babel-16 through Babel-20 into redirects to Babel-X as a test case... theoretically all of the smaller Babel boxes could be changed to do so, but I am not advocating that currently. CBDunkerson 11:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Babel-21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-26 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-28 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-32 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-33 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-35 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-37 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-38 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-40 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-41 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-42 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-43 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-44 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-45 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-46 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-47 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete I just replaced my babel-21 with a babel-X and it works fine. —Ruud 12:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete No reason to have them all. I Lov E Plankton 16:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --AlF 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I just replaced my babel-21 with a babel-X and it works fine. --Vlad|-> 23:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Andy123(talk) 00:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to {{Babel-X}}, for ease. --Rory096 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you Babels-21 through -47, but must you take 48? Delete, of course, per nom. Joe 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment—Should the users who actually employ these templates should be notified first before their pages will no longer display correctly? Ardric47 01:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Cydebot (talk · contribs) will subst them all in before deletion. --Cyde Weys 02:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, I always found these templates pretty ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 02:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete --Cyde Weys 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Olde

Delete per nom. I Lov E Plankton 16:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, creator didn't even get Aulde Anglisch correct. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 04:10 UTC

April 27, 2006

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japan infobox

Delete, If every article had it's own infobox... Misplaced Pages would need a huge cleanup. But they don't, and this template shouldnt be anymore special than all the other ones. --Dominic 04:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per Dominic. I Lov E Plankton 00:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete it is also not used on the main Japan page.--Andrew c 02:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirected to {{cleanup}}. Angr (t • c) 11:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Clean up

Template:Clean up (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to {{Cleanup-date}} 165.189.91.148 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and to {{Cleanup}} - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and tag as deprecated (with {{Tdeprecated}}?); the likelihood of this being re-created by a well-meaning citizen is relatively high I think. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Replace all the articles that have this template with {{Cleanup-date}}. --Dominic 04:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and replace Per dominic. I Lov E Plankton 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Too much process. I'm just going to be bold and redirect to {{Cleanup}}. Mango juice 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I had to remove the TFD notice to do it. If anyone objects, they can put it back but I really don't see the point in the debate. Mango juice 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep of course. This is what is most commonly put on the article itself by an editor, then Pearle changes it to cleanup-date for sorting. --Rory096 04:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just realized that it wasn't always a redirect to cleanup; I thought {{cleanup}} was on TfD! --Rory096 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was merge and delete. Angr (t • c) 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NY-bt

Template:NY-bt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to {{NYC Bridge}}. Latter is younger, but is prettier and is being used. NY-bt is unwieldy, is only being used on two articles, which are not bridges/tunnels, but rather related organizations. They can go without a template, I think. Delete.- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom --larsinio (poke) 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Delete. {{NYC Bridge}} is prettier, and has a less-confusing name, but including the operators is important. Migrate them from {{NY-bt}} to a third row in {{NYC Bridge}}, then delete the redundant template. --CComMack 23:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to and Delete as stated above. Best solution. --Dominic 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge. The operators are important.--Jusjih 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge and delete Per CCoMack. I Lov E Plankton 00:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:OSPALeague

Delete per Mailer Diablo --Andy123(talk) 10:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. I Lov E Plankton 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japan map

Template:Japan map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It's a copyright tag that basically says "I don't know what the copyright on this image is, but I'm uploading it anyway on the off-chance that it's a free license". We don't need that sort of image, and we don't need this tag. --Carnildo 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 10:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dominic 04:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock

Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Recently, Tifego (talk · contribs) attempted to create this template, intending to tag the only page of a user, who is not yet proven himself or herself as sockpuppet. The template is the same as Template:SockpuppetCheckuser and doesn't include the phrase "has been blocked indefinitely". It is not currently used on other userpages and looks pointless than the main tag. Although, comfirmed or verified sock puppets that are found by Checkuser are generally permablocked and tagged with {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}. I don't think no one is ever going to use it wisely. -- ADNghiem501 04:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He was proven a sockpuppet; the Checkuser came back confirmed that he is a sockpuppet. But, go ahead and delete this template if you want, because ~~it can be replaced just as well by the "confirmed by evidence" template~~ there is no template to replace it but I don't really care anyway. –Tifego_{04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

- Oh I see. BTW, I subst'ed the tag you placed, so I could easily edit to remove the tfd notice and non-existent category from it. It won't be deleted on the sock's page. -- ADNghiem501 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I Lov E Plankton 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:United States infobox

Template:United States infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is an orphaned template that isn't used in the main namespace. Brendenhull seems to have marked this article for deletion 3 days ago, but there was never an entry made here in the log. Andrew c 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete template orphaned and will probably not be used in many articles. --Andy123(talk) 10:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, It is most likly not being used anymore and, again, each article doesn't need to make a whole new template for just that article. --Dominic 04:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete The template is just a copy of what is on United States of America, which already uses an infobox. And how many articles can be about just the United States of America? --Primat e 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

April 26, 2006

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:India infobox

Delete in addition to the nom, this is an orphaned template that is not used on the main India article.--Andrew c 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. -- MJCdetroit 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. --Dominic 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Italy infobox

Delete per nom. This template is also an orphan not used by the main Italy article.--Andrew c 01:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. -- MJCdetroit 13:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. --Dominic 04:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia infobox

Conditional delete. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia still uses this template. If someone changes the infobox to Template:Infobox Country and removes this infobox from the page, then I would accept a delete. If not, then we need to keep this template so the article doesn't break.--Andrew c 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Substitute and delete --Andy123(talk) 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep if reformated and placed inside article. That infobox needs some work. I don't think the Template:Infobox Country will work because the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no longer exists. Therefore, there is no current data.—MJCdetroit 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I converted it to use {{Infobox Country}}. The content should be kept, whether in the template or not. --Joy 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, because Joy converted it. thanks. --Dominic 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP! as per MJCdetroit. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --serbiana - talk 18:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:CPS series

Template:CPS series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template refers to a series of Super Soaker water gun models (See Super Soaker and CPS 2000). Only one of these pages exists. The template is effectively a request for a very large amount of information about a very narrow topic. Unencyclopedic; this belongs on "supersoakerfans.com" or some such site.

Delete. PatrickFisher 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete maybe one day wikipedia will have articles covering all those toys, but until that day, this template is completely useless. --Andrew c 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Andy123(talk) 10:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Citepaper

Template:Citepaper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper version (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper publisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper publisher version (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Each of these has the following issues: 1) The parameters are only uppercase, which means that URL=http://www.url.com does not equal url=http://www.url.com (most commonly used on {{cite web}} et al), 2) None of the parameters are optional (unlike {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc), 3) They are redundant to {{cite paper}}, which was created because of these reasons. 4) Three other templates of a similar name were created to allow for optional parameters (version, publisher, and both), which has been taken into consideration with {{cite paper}}. The templates have now been deprecated and migrated using WP:AWB (using this script), and are pointless except for their use in some userpages, talkpages, and Misplaced Pages namespace (this is a simple matter to convert, though). Hence, I'm suggesting their deletion. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and good job that editor… —Phil | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ligulem 09:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the apparently only current use of Citepaper in an article (Rick_Ross) to use {{cite paper}}. That article also uses another deprecated template {{citenewsauthor}}. MeekMark 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Deprecate and delete, per Jude. Tito xd 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --James 05:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and tag {{Citepaper}} with {{Tdeprecated}}; it is not unlikely that this might be recreated by a well-meaning editor.

Delete the remaining three. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Suicidehelp

Template:Suicidehelp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Were this a template designed to exist as a userbox, it would likely be appropriate (assuming arguendo one believes userboxes may display points-of-view). In its current iteration, though, the template intimates that it reflects policy (see, e.g., in the employment of the collective "we"), where surely there is no policy, and, in any case, is irredeemably POV (one may consider, I suppose, a template that exists only to convey that Misplaced Pages is not a resource one ought to consult toward the determination of whether he/she ought to kill him/herself, but even such a template would likely be POV, inexpicably elevating postings about suicide above postings about, say, religion; we don't, and oughtn't, to have a template suggesting that those who come to Misplaced Pages in order that they might decide which is the one true religion that they ought to follow should search elsewhere). Even as the POV the external link advocates (scilicet, that one oughtn't to kill him/herself) is one with which, in general, most here likely concur, it is nevertheless a POV, and, in any case, we should not have templates directing users that they ought to take a search elsewhere because we haven't information for them; they will likely reach that conclusion without our telling them. Hence, delete. Joe 05:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Abstain. I agree that allowing this template could lead to a slippery POV slope, among other problems. I mostly created it as a resource for those who were concerned about the possibility of suicide threats being real rather than vandalism. Going to pass on voting. No hard feelings if its deleted. Tijuana Brass 06:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. But for a different reason. I think it goes beyond the scope of what wikipedia is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for suicide prevention, and I think the concept is great....but not as a template. It's my opinion that if you come across a user who appear suicidal, then an actual, personal conversation with the user through talk pages is much more appropriate than a template. Secondarily, what makes that help site any better than any other help site? It could set precedent for other such templates that, in effect, could give the appearance of wikipedia "approval" of certain external cites. I really want to vote keep, but I wouldn't feel right doing so. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 07:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete; per Joe's "irredeemably POV" and Swatjester's first point. I genuinely appreciate the intentions behind the template's creation, and I guess my comments re suicide in the admin space have led in some degree to its creation, but I couldn't imagine placing it on a user's page. Discussion is a better alternative. Thanks to the creator for the proactive response to negative comments must be expressed, though. Colon el Tom 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete in accordance with well reasoned arguments presented above, especially the one about using person to person communication, not a template, as a way to reach out. Full marks to all involved for having wanted to try this approach out, though. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Swatjester. This is an extremely delicate issue, an ugly one size fits all is not a sensitive way of dealing with it. the wub "?!" 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per above --larsinio (poke) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The unacceptable POV is simply the advocacy of a particular resource. But lo! WP already has an NPOV 'suicide help' resource: the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide. While I do agree that personal conversation is preferable, it can't hurt to have some (NPOV) tool like this at our disposal. Let's reach out in a WP way. - PatrickFisher 03:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I think we ought to have a Template:Suicidehelp and it should have the same content as the existing "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide. - PatrickFisher 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete I don't think someone having suicidal thoughts is going to be swayed by someone posting a template for them and this template only encourages people to post it instead of talking to them. Kotepho 04:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete What's next, marriage proposal via template? Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Why have I been fooling around with these self-help ideas when we can do proposals, vows, even toasts, all via template! Just think! {{proposal}} could lead to {{acceptproposal}}, unless there's a {{commitmentfear}}, which would then be resolved by {{financialsecurity}} and followed by {{proposal2}}. Then, {{parenttalk}}, {{tuxrental}}, and {{bachelorparty}}, {{keepdownthenoise}}, {{keepdownthenoise2}}, {{nexttimei'mcallingthecops}}, all before {{wedding}}. Hopefully, no divorce templates will be coming, as I have yet to design {{wedding2}}, {{wedding3}}, and the inevitable {{mailorderbride}}. Tijuana Brass 11:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious you've never had a life partnet. Everyone knows {{makesuretheyrereal}} comes first! All joking aside, someone should get Jimbo to register WikiWedding NOW. People have been married underwater, in space, in WoW... but never on a wiki... imagine the edit summaries! Garrett 12:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Andy123(talk) 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as variously described above. Garrett 12:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

April 25, 2006

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Dual image

Used on two pages - very specific, no need to be a template. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per above --larsinio (poke) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 12:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:UC taxobox

Delete as Nom. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- My thanks to whomever fixed the nomination. I don't do much TFD/AFD work. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listed (university undergraduate was listed twice) --William Allen Simpson 22:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Colon el Tom 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Ahasuerus 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Andy123(talk) 10:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep I know I'm getting in sticky there, but look at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Regional Politics. I don't see a reason to single these two. Feel free the nominate the whole batch,though. Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User N-K

Template:User N-K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
template should be deleted due to conflict tension between Azeri and Armenians. If Chechnya deletion is applicable, then to avoid bias, Karabakh should be removed. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Very Strong Delete as Nom. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but I should stress it is currentely used by nobody as all of the Armenian users who put that userbox use code. So real reason is we have wasted template that is not linked to anything. That I think should not even be considered vote and be listed as a speedy deletion candidate, but if you insist so shall I. --Kuban Cossack 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please dont use that game here. That user box is in section of Separatists templates in the regions section of user boxes. It has similar make up as Chechnya. Thats what i mean about your bias POV. Chechnya does not suit you due to your nationality. But karabakh is a different case? Please have some dignity. Noxchi Borz 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have dignity, unlike some of the comments you have put on the talk page of the template below. --Kuban Cossack

21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

like which ones mr Kazak? Noxchi Borz 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you insist:

When I told about previous votes I got:Which vote? vote among the Russian nationalists?
Then comes even more cunning comment:No Russian admins or people of Russian background voting will count as valid.
Russian POV will not be tolorated! But it seems yours shall be.
Need I go continue? --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I already stated that many things might not suit you but they should exist on Wiki. I guess a person who has participate din this shameful war can not understand that. Many innocent people were killed and mostly due to Russian imperialist policy. You found easy way out from this conflict. To kill every Chechen. In your case, i cant even talk about dignity. Its something else. Farewell Mr Kazak.Noxchi Borz 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I was told not to feed the trolls, I will say I take no shame in Restoring Russian territorial integrity and avenging 250,000 Russians that were forced to leave, beaten or killed by the terrorists. I pride in that. --Kuban Cossack

21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

delete -- recent creation, probably speedy delete T1 --William Allen Simpson 21:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Except you are not the nom, unless there is sockpuppetry going on. And why in that case do you show a double standard for Chehcnya.--Kuban Cossack 21:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"as per" means "for the same reasons as" in this context. ed g2s • talk 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sorry to have to vote this way, since I think it's unduly stifling free speech, but this does violate T1. TheJabberwʘck 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I don’t think Misplaced Pages should endorse a support of separatist movements. Grandmaster 10:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No divisive and hate templates. --Tabib 11:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (My reasons for supporting this deletion nomination are adequately expressed by the nominator.) Colon el Tom 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is inflammatory stuff... abdulnr 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is a encycolpedia and should not endorse separatist movements. Baku87 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87
Delete. I totally agree with the nominator. -- Grafikm_fr 09:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete No separatist, division and hate templates Karabakh 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Karabakh
Keep You get rid of it, you keep it, either way it will come up in one form or another. I don't have much time right now, but soon I will be back, and a lot of this crap that I'm seeing will have to fight for its life.--Moosh88 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- And you will only succeed in getting yourself blocked. Save yourself the trouble. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 03:28 UTC
Speedy Keep. Nope, nothing wrong with this. Find something more productive to do. --Dragon695 21:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I am disturbed to see that most of the delete votes are coming from Russians and Azeris. Please do not turn TfD into an ethnic feud. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 03:28 UTC
Keep What's amusing is that most of the people who voted for "Delete" would go nuts if the "Turkish Cypriot independence/recognition" userbox was nominated for deletion. Ah well. Hakob 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't have much of an opinion on this specific userbox, so I won't vote, but I think the whole removal of userboxes is stupid. It just makes it more cumbersome for people, as they will have to manually show their opinion instead. --DarkPhoenix 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - If this is deleted then perhaps the Template:User independent Kurdistan should also be deleted?! -- - K a s h 13:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Put it forward then, I believe that all separatist hate provoking templates should go.--Kuban Cossack 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete along with all separatist Userboxes, whether their cause is right or wrong (which, of course, is not relevent to creating an encyclopedia.) Misplaced Pages is not the place for political, ethnic or national feuds. The fact that anti-separatists may be 'voting' against this template is irrelevant, but it does illustrate that this template does encourages social networking, which is not the role of Misplaced Pages, according to its policies. Nhprman 17:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. See my comments on User Independent Chechnya. (the following quoted from what i said on user independent chechnya debate below, then reworded to N-K) This isn't for articles. mabye you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent Nagorno-Karabakh" userbox if you feel so inclined.--preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 06:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

These templates are being stored in the Template space, making them a community issue. If they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we will know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. But if you want to give people an excuse to not trust you, or to second-guess your edits, by all means, tell people to question your judgement. I would simply suggest that it's not a good idea - Nhprman 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Karabakh", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Azerbaijanis should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to opinion, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, "divisive & inflammatory". MaxSem 15:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Chechnya

Delete as Nom. --Kuban Cossack 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please maintain the NOPV. There are great amount of people who support Chechen independence. So far, the deletion was made by Russians, therefore pro Russian POV. Please respect the guidelines of Wiki on NPOV. The independence issue of Chechnya is relevant in separatist section. If there are template on Karabakh independence than dont be biased on Chechnya. --Noxchi Borz

19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Which "Russians" deleted the page in the past? User:Kelly Martin? Please have decency not to mislead others, if you are unable to prove your allegations. --Ghirla 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Karabakh is irrelevant, but if it comes up I will support its deletion. Make a personalised user box if you have to. As for all Russians being nationalists, watch WP:NPA. --Kuban Cossack

19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why will you support deletion of karabakh? dont you find it biased due to your Russian origins and that you have participate din war in Chechnya? How about creation of Abkhazia box will you support its deletion? Noxchi Borz 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I will never create Abkhazia box nor South Osetia, nor Transdniester, nor Crimea, nor Kosovo, nor Palestine nor any other POV box because that is a pure source of conflict. On the contrary I will support their deletion if they are created. I do not like this double standard of NPOV you trying to pursue. I mean you might as well create a UserNazi template in that case.--Kuban Cossack

19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you are correct about double standard for NPOV in Wiki. Whast your stand on Abkhazia, S Ossetia Kosovo? Ill tell you after why i ask you this. Noxchi Borz 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal thoughts that I keep for myself, that are not part of my wikipedian status in any shape or form. I'll just say that I have not created any templates that have those places and do not intend and will not create them, for reasons explained above, and will support their deletion should the question arise. --Kuban Cossack

19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Noxchi Borz 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Delete --Eupator 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, Karabakh is next Noxchi Borz 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Chechen, i'm using code on my page and not a template :) --Eupator 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the best Armenian, well thats what you think. Noxchi Borz 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment On the one hand, the primary purpose of userboxes is to "alert other Wikipedians to ways you might aid them in editing" as per WP:Userboxes. Userboxes that state that "this user supports XYZ" do not help with editing, but rather serve as soapboxes, something that WP policies explicitly forbid. To quote Jimbo Wales, "userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian". On the other hand, there is a ton of "regional politics" userboxes at and almost all of them go against these guidelines. If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future. Ahasuerus 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Fully support your proposal, and this template is good place to start it off with. --Kuban Cossack 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. And not because I am Russian. I'd vote the same way if I saw "This user supports independent Texas". KNewman 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Newman. There are tons of user boxes which claim the support for Karabakh independence, basque, catalonian, tibetan. Why dont you delete them? So you are biased in Chechnya case? Noxchi Borz 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just show me where to vote. KNewman 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, when Chinese or Spanish colleagues will put up the notices here, I will support them. As per Ahasuerus's comment above. --Kuban Cossack

20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Mr Kazak, than first vote and delete those "politically incorect" user bosex before Chechnya. You case is obvious, you are Russian and biased in the terms of Chechnya. Mr Ahasuerus should start deliting Karabakh, Tibet, Basque, etc. Lets see how active you will be. Im sure you are only active in Chwechnya case. Noxchi Borz 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As an author of several artciles I find much more time well spent writing new articles rather than voting for deletions, and purifying wikipedia from POV from articles that are not related to me or the ones I write is not my priority. That I leave to the administrators, which I am not and do not intend to become. Should a colleague notify me and ask for my opinion on the matter I shall certainly participate and support the deletion of the template in question, and if the case of templates like the ones you named above arises, I will certainly support their deletion. --Kuban Cossack

20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

p.s Chechnya is not Texas Numan. US did not wage genocide of local population and bombed Huston to the ground (looking like berlin of 1945). Noxchi Borz 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The only Genocide in Southern Russian state of Chechnya was committed against the local Russian and Cossack population by savage Chechen beasts.--Eupator 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that IS a POV. --Kuban Cossack

20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

yes its typical POV. As defender of genocide victims, maybe you should mention Khojaly massacre eh Armenian? I think you will find true beast and savage animals there.Noxchi Borz 20:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I condone the slaughter of Azeri civillians by Azeri soldiers. --Eupator 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley, or Borz whoever you are, this is your job, that is EXACTLY why such templates and images like these are a timebomb for conflicts (now that you got yourself into one, enjoy it, it was what you wanted to have respectible wikipedians loose their temper, I am not going to pacify you), which is EXACTLY why I think Ahasuerus is right about their total purge from wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack

20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for loosing temper mr kazak or whoever you are. If you condemn one template this must apply for all. You have typical POV which is against Chechnya and her independence. I do agree with Mr Ahasuerus but you are only demanding the deletion of one particular template which does not suit you. This is not what Wiki is about. This site was not created to suit you or Russian imperialism. Im Sorry. Noxchi Borz 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah nice joke. But i dont think its funny. Armenian. Noxchi Borz 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Not because I support Chechnya's independence, but for the sake of compromise. A simple concept of freedom of expresion of thought, no? Kober 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case why not create This user is a nazi or white-power templates? Seriously a line has to be drawn what can go into wiki or not. Like I said above we either allow xenophobic templates like this user is a russophobe/anti-semite etc.etc. or we do not allow any. I personally do care about the quality of wikipedia as a reference source and would hate to think what would happen if such templates originate.--Kuban Cossack

20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

belive it or not i agree with you Kazak :) Hey can i vote twice ? :) Joke. I will nominate karabakh next. Noxchi Borz 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As Eupator stated, the userbox for Karabakh is code and not a template. Of course, you'd love it if the Karabakh independence userboxes were removed from every user's page, but it's not going to happen. Hakob 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP The desire for independence does not have anything with hate or xenophobia. Of course there might be xenophobic Chechens like xenophobic Russians/Poles/Americans etc., but independence is not xenophobic per se like Romanov's Flag is not xenophobic per se. It is not neutral allowing symbols of independence for some unrecognized entities and denying for others. Jasra 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Noxchi Borz 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes and this flag was official and RECOGNISED in its history. Moreover I coded all of my userboxes and did not use tempaltes. So your analogy is totaly wrong. Although I understand the angle you are coming from and is so far has been the most sensible I have heard during this campaign. --Kuban Cossack

21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Typical Russian nationalist POV. From what i have seen in your user box, there are tons of indications of this.

Keep as per above. --Domthedude001 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So do expain why you voted against for Nagorno-Karabakh.--Kuban Cossack

21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- has been speedy deleted several times in the past two months, good thing to have the debate recorded here. --William Allen Simpson 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete T1. ed g2s • talk 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep we have Tibet, Kurdistan, and Assyria independence templates, what's wrong with Chechnya? —Khoikhoi 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sorry to have to vote this way, since I think it's unduly stifling free speech, but this does violate T1. Noxchi Borz, I sympathize with you, but there's not much you or I can do. TheJabberwʘck 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. This divisive and useless template has generated tons of hate talk already and was deleted twice. How does it help one to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages, I'd like to know. This voting is a waste of time. With or without the vote, it will be deleted as per Jimbo's ruling on divisive hate-templates. --Ghirla 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or replace with "User supports partitioning of Russia", but seriously, I don't mind if it stays. Speaks much of users, who post such divisive stuff at their talk. The easier it would be for others to make up their minds about such fellows. See and for more. --Irpen 05:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I don’t think Misplaced Pages should endorse a support of separatist movements. Grandmaster 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I don't support dismemberment or partitioning of Russia yet I do not support occupation of Chechnya either. //Halibu tt 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case I can make templates Free Bialystok, Free eastern Pomerania whose occupation I do not support. --Kuban Cossack

12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This template neither promotes cooperative editing, nor assists the community-building. Fully agree with Ahasuerus on this. I would vote to delete any similar template.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ahasuerus and Ezhiki, if we have a policy against divisive templates, then we should follow it abakharev 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as divisive and non-productive. Ëzhiki summed it up well. Colon el Tom
Delete per nom. -- tasc _deeds 14:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete abdulnr 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is a encycolpedia and should not endorse separatist movements. Baku87 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87
Slippery slope Keep I dont have an opinon about this issue, but its a major slipperly slope between endorising whether the XBOX is better htan the gamecube, and this issue. --larsinio (poke) 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Question to those who want to delete and give the arguments about the lack of encyclopedic values or causing division? Would you like to delete all the unity/separatist movements templates or just this one or a few selected. If just this one - give the argument why this one promotes more hate than for example the one advocating for Srpska Krajina or N-K? If all the category - you should propose voting for the deletion of all the category and not just this template. Removing a selected template from the category violates the policy of NPoV. Jasra 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. If Chechnya is deleted, the whole section of separatist templates should be removed. N-K is headed for deletion, Srpska Krajina and the rest will follow if NPOV is respected. Noxchi Borz 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's why I wrote:

If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future.

above. Regional politics in particular is full of advocacy userboxes, but other types of userboxes can easily get out of hand as well. At some point there will have to be a single policy in place or else there will be no end to "my advocacy is more valid than your advocacy" disputes like this one. There are also technical problems with userboxes vs. "code" vs. Transclusion. The last straw poll on the subject was inconclusive, so all we have to fall back on is Jimbo's quote above and the statement that Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place for political campaigning, and userboxes created or used for this purpose may be deleted. For the sake of consistency, I would recommend deleting all "This user supports political campaign" userboxes at the same time as opposed to spending hundreds of manhours on debating them on a case by case basis. Ahasuerus 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse this sensible, reasonable approach. Unfortunately, Jimbo himself refuses to take the action necessary to give some substance to his nice words and make this happen, and several thousand users endlessly debating this will never find true consensus on this issue. I don't know the solution to this problem other than action by Jimbo. Nhprman 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. --Yakudza 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per users Kuban Cossack and Ahasuerus. --Illythr 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, other secessionist movement boxes also exist. --James 05:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Very strong delete of this quite bothersome and nationalist userbox. -- Grafikm_fr 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete divisive -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete No separatist, division and hate templates Karabakh 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Karabakh
Very Strong Delete - Delete all separatist, political and divisive templates like this one. The Misplaced Pages project is not meant to be a political or social soapbox, and this is not the place to argue the pro or con of every nationalist/separatist cause. Nhprman 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete: CSD T1. If we keep it, that would mean that other userboxes such as {{User IRA}}, {{User ETA}} & {{User Al-Quaeda}} have a right to exist. MaxSem 11:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Per James. --Dragon695 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, this is not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. it's a userbox. if we want NPOV on articles, POV being stated on userpages of involved editors is a useful thing. besides, userboxes are for User Pages, not articles. if people use them, ther existence is not negative. if you don't like what a userbox says, Don't put it on your userpage. it's not right that anyone with any conterversial belief or belief that isn't accepted by everyone can't have a userbox. if we let this go, we might as well delete every userbox that shows any sign of being a unique individual? why don't we just abolish userpages all together? why don't we replace our usernames with randomly assigned numbers? Viva La Userboxen! --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above if we have one template, we have many other hate-provoking ones. Although this is a 💕, it should also be a credible one, not a mess. Do you forcast wiki's reputation when swastikas begin appearing on user pages? Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. --Kuban Cossack

10:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The only hate promotion on Wiki is your Russian fascist flag which you have besides your name. Maybe you can fool some people here but not me. Don’t be hypocrite and blame others for things which apply to you. Russian fascism is one of the most dangerous ideologies for civilized world. Pay attention to recent events and systematic murder of non-Russian people in Moscow. Today Russian Neo-nazis (in these days a very popular movement in Russia) rallied again and actually waved those flags which you use here. I guess some users like you can also use flag of the Third Reich (it was also an official flag of Germany in 1940s). This whole situation is a shame and complete waste of time. There should no compromise what so ever for fascism and ultra-nationalism anywhere. Russo Fascisto No Pasaran! Noxchi Borz 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are reminded not to feed the trolls.

--Kuban Cossack

22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw all of my familly fought against the Nazi invaders (and their Chechen collaborators) so I shall not even comment on that trollish bulls..t. As for the flag that was the historical flag of the Russian Empire. --Kuban Cossack

22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, Even if people are nazis, even if they are fascist, if this is what people believe than they have a right to put them on thier userboxes. that's what free speech is. in democratic society people have a right to be racist and to resort to bigotry. that doesn't mean that they are right, but free speech is what makes freedom freedom! that you can say anything you want and not be subject to a McCarthyist intimidation. that'ss what tolerance is! that people can have different beliefs, even if they're wrong, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others, have a right to have a unique opinion. i'm not promoting hate, i'm promoting free speech. and "seperatist" does not mean hate. even if it sometimes leads to that, they are not synonomous. it is not ethically wrong, you are not committing thoughtcrime to think that the chechyens can have thier own country. whether they ever do, that's not the point.--preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Free speech is allowed, but think of the quality of wikipedia as a good reference source when people begin using templates such as those above. --Kuban Cossack

22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't for articles. maybe you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent chechnya" userbox if you feel so inclined. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

These templates are being stored in the Template space, even if the templates are displayed on user pages. They are therefore a community issue. However, if they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. As for your call to create opposing Userboxes, you illustrate the reason why these boxes are divisive and inflammatory. Misplaced Pages is not the place for political debates and ethnic feuds. - Nhprman 17:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Any userbox can be divisive. We can either accept this fact and agree that not everyone will be happy or remove all the userboxes (at least all the political ones). Kuban Kazak said: Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. - in this case your Tsarist flag can also be divisive and you keep it. I received no answer why THIS PARTICULAR template is more devisive than any other of a political character. Quite a few people voted for deletion admitting that they are any templates showing political stands. However if just this one template is removed and the other will stay - this will cause the situation when one PoV is put above the other. I would suggest these people reconsider their vote, unless they have some arguments that this particular template is worse than any other of political orientation (so far I didn't see any arguments given). Proposal for deleting the whole "political" category is more rational, and I can see arguments both for and against, but it should be a separate voting. Jasra 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Chechnya", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Russians should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to free speech, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, Cossack, if your entire family did help fight against the nazis and chechyns, respectable as that may be, i'm not seeing how there's any way you can remain neutral about this and wanting to see it deleted for reasons other than your own opinion. you have a right to stating your opinion, and so do they. the point of userbox deletion is to get rid of unapplicable and unneecessesary ones, and ones that specifically refer to hate, not to find more people who have one opinion than the other and delete userboxes solely on the fact that it's a contreversial topic that has a clear minority that doesn't have the numbers to defend itself. you say that "wikipedia is not a soapbox" but the very reason you are trying to delete it is because of your own POV on the topic. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a minority group. Chechnya is an integral part of Russia which is recognised by all governments and the United Nations. Those who support its independence thus support the breakup of Russia with no respect for its territorial integrity or the international community. Btw the Beslan and Moscow Theatre terrorists came under that flag that the template uses. Finally there not all Chechens are anti-Russian, quite the opposite Ramzan Kadyrov for instance, and how many Chechens right now are living in Moscow and making excellent careers there? The template is also insulting to Chechens as well due to naive users who choose to put it. The reason for its deletion is that it has no use. Finally I shall repeat myself that wikipedia is a reference source and I do not want its credibility doubted because some editors choose to show off themselves as such. Finally if a template User supports al-queda arises or independence of Afghanistan with the Taliban flag. How do you expect people, particualary relatives of those that the Chechen and Al-queda terrorists killed will value wikipedia? Free speach is not an alibi to degenerate wikipedia into a nationalist propaganda machine. --Kuban Cossack

20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, that is your opinion. you are entitled to your opinion. it is completly fine for you to have that opinion, and you can support it all you want, you are entitleed to free speech. but other people have other opinions and they are also entitled to free speech. if someone has a significant opinion it is not beyond thier rights to have a userbox. A userbox does not represent the views of wikipedia as a whole. a usserbox represents the views of anyone who uses the userbox, and if other people decide to use it that is thier right. having a userbox does not support division and conteversy. it is merely an act of free speech. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And this free speach not only goes against wikiettiquette but is extreamely offensive for some. That is the issue. Should wiki be allowed to have such anger generating images. Userpages or articles is irrelevant as user pages are still part of wikipedia. User pages are subject to fairuse image restrictions, so they should be equally censored from hate provoking templates. --Kuban Cossack

23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So, essentially what you are saying is "Free speech only applies if you agree with me, because we're right and they're wrong." that's not the point! they may very well be wrong, but they have every right to state what they believe in a non-provoking way. and this is not. the mere stating for a desire of independence is simply stating belief, not an attempt to offend. also, if it's the flag you're trying to remove, then that doesn't involve deletion of the entire userbox, just a substitution of the flag, and this isn't the place for that debate. as it has already been said before, the flag on your sig offends some, but you don't seem compelled to remove it to make sure nobody gets offended. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

they have every right to state what they believe in a non-provoking way And this template does exactly that. It provokes users towards immediate disrespect. When a user states Free Palestine on his box how do you think a Jewish person (particulary someone who lost a relative from a suicide bomb attack) would react to an article seeing written by that person. Of course he will think it is biased, and already a little template provokes hate and anger. That is the issue here. Misplaced Pages is not for political debates. Templates that spark friction should not exist. The user can code the template if he wants to, but doing that he is saying that I am not using wikipedian tools and doing so on my free accord. And yes free speach is a important provided its not abused. This template is insulting in its manner and nothing more. I find it offensive, and what you are saying just because some people find it offensive and others don't its alright. So since when have everybody who voted against become second sort users, where wikipedia sanctions others to use such offensive templates by providing them. That way you are saying its alright for someone to feel offended and nothing should be done about it. That is the issue. And I will, if need to, take this to the arbitration committee. --Kuban Cossack

00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Weasel-inline

Template:Weasel-inline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An inline template for what one user defines as weasel words is inherently disruptive. This was not requested, there was non consensus to add, and there is no need for it. Irishpunktom\ 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. as nom - Irishpunktom\ 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This tag has been introduced in order to signal weasel wording without disrupting the article layout, of which imho there certainly is a need. An additional advantage is that the tag points directly to the problem phrase. --Unweasel 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- But, disrupting the article layout is exactly what it does! --Irishpunktom\ 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - As do all tags. Please compare: Template:Weasel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Weal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Now, which is the most disruptive? I think, it is the WEASEL tag. I will shorten the tag in order to address some of your concerns. --Unweasel 14:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

- - - The top one does not go after every instance of what an editor decides is a "weasel word", rather it flags that they exist and suggests that the problem be dealt with on the talk page--Irishpunktom\ 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, if something has weasel words it should just be removed. But the reasons for delete are flawed, see {{citeneeded}}, one of my favorite templates to use! -- Ned Scott 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I think this will be useful for helping improve articles by pinpointing what weasel words are. It will hopefully also lead to people noticing what they are and using them less. -- Jeff3000 14:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I disagree with the nominator about there not being a need for this one. Instead of the other template, which generally points out that an article contains weasel words, this template can be used to point out the exact location of these words. So, I'd say it's a good compliment to the weasel template. --DarkPhoenix 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep useful, beneficial, and i think more poeople need ot use this --larsinio (poke) 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - a very handy tool, as it allows you to more specifically mark which statement is being referred to as having weasel language in it, rather than disrupting the page (and putting off the reader) with the whole Weasel banner and template for a problem with only one or two statements. --Jibran1 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
keep, delete {{weasel}} -- and change to "weasel word" instead of "weasel lng." to match prior discussion about Template:Weasel words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --William Allen Simpson 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the template {{weasel}} does this template's job, and does it better. --Domthedude001 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this template is bad because it isn't very apparent that there might be a problem there - weasel is much better. Just another star in the night 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Redirect5p

Template:Redirect5p (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
~~Unused~~, redundant to {{Redirect}}, and harmful as links like this should always use the entire title of the article. When a link like this gets put into print, it needs to use the correct article name - "see foo" pointing at "bar" is misleading. Hairy Dude 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's useful for pointing to specific sections, such as the usage at Multitrack recording. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's the only intended usage, it should just be the same as {{Redirect}} but with an extra parameter to specify an anchor. As it is, it's too flexible. Hairy Dude 13:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, why do we want to hide the fact that the link points to an anchor at all? I can't see a good reason for wanting to. Hairy Dude 13:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There were until just now only three uses in article namespace. One used link text that was to a nonexistent article, and the others used ambiguous text to a disambiguated title, both of which should just use the full title, so I changed them to use {{redirect}}. So Multitrack recording is now the only instance of this usage. Hairy Dude 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- superfluous, confusing, should not hide (pipe) target link. Indeed, according to the current Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, the target link should have the "(disambiguation)" qualifier. --William Allen Simpson 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy delete under G7. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Stargate race/Instructions

Template:Stargate race/Instructions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was PRODded with the reasoning "Purely esoteric and created for maintenance work to templates; work complete, page unneeded", but PROD is for articles only, not templates, so I'm bringing it here. No vote from me since I have no earthly idea what this template is used for. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The only author (other than fixing the prod template and changing it to TfD) asked for its deletion, so speedy delete. TimBentley (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Done. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete The vast majority of the links in this template are red. Even if those articles exist, they're probably by another name than "at the Summer Olympics". This template is insane, it's huge, and it's not helpful for navigating to other articles Ned Scott 06:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment there is an aim to have "X at the Summer Olympics" for every national olympic committee (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Sports_Olympics/Articles). (And also a "X at the Winter Olympics" for every NOC) Andjam 07:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The template was created September 2004, and this is as far as it's gotten? -- Ned Scott 08:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

9 of the top 10 medal-winning NOCs have articles (the exception, East Germany, no longer exists). Andjam 08:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this was a template featuring just those 10 I wouldn't have a problem with this. But it's not... At best I can see this template being used once more articles have been created, as well as being reformatted to not just look like a huge blob (maybe some sort of grouping by continent or something). But right now it's just... not useful, at all. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep will be useful eventually. --larsinio (poke) 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. --Domthedude001 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When is eventually? Like I said, the template was created in September 2004. This is the kind of template you make AFTER you've done most of the articles, not before. And, again, I'd like to point out that it's a huge ugly blob. Even if all those articles were there, it's painful to use it for navigation. Maybe the template could be changed to have the articles that you currently have, then a link via the WikiProject to a list of articles that need creation? -- Ned Scott 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Ned Scott's arguments, not others, so far. Colon el Tom 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I suspect any of these articles would be kept by AFD, so redlinks are justified. the wub "?!" 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, too huge. MaxSem 02:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

April 24, 2006

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador is served by rebroadcasters of the very same TV stations that serve St. John's, as are dozens of other Newfoundland communities. The one local station it did have is now a pure rebroad itself and has been for some time. BBM considers the province a single market. I appreciate User:MapleLeafFan04's affection for the subject, but taken to its extreme, it would mean most Canadian TV station pages would be cluttered with templates representing every rebroad area. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, and while at it, merge all the various Maritime TV templates (Fredericton, Saint John, Moncton, Chaleur Bay, Charlottetown, Halifax and Sydney off the top of my head) into one as well. Kirjtc2 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Off-topic comment: Given that the CBC stations do have different local news, one per province should suffice. Having said that I believe the rule is "use originating market only", i.e. don't use PEI TV on CKCW-TV. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Creator has removed template from station pages on which it was used. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was subst and delete. Pagra shtak 04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:FEUbox

Subst and Delete MiraLuka 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Subst and Delete as per above. --Domthedude001 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Subst and Delete as per above. Howard the Duck | talk, 13:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:ImpersonatorProven

Template:ImpersonatorProven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused according to What Links Here and Google. I can't find any talk about it's creation. None of the categories that pages would use if they were tagged with this have any text on them, so I'm guessing it's redundant. SeventyThree 10:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

delete, unlike with sockpuppetry it is obvious whether a user is impesonating someone else or not. Thryduulf 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, this would be a good template... but where would it go? --Domthedude001 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Pagra shtak 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Atmospheric sciences

Looks strikingly similar to the summarily rejected Root page family of templates and other paraphernalia that were deleted nearly unanimously in various venues. — Apr. 24, '06 <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Keep. --Domthedude001 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I agree that Atmospheric sciences could do with a lot of work but the subfields in this template are closely related but distinct. As such it is good to have a way of linking them together.--NHSavage 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under CSD A2 (even though it's not an article, i think it applies.) Circeus 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Comuna of Chile

Template:Comuna of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is in a foreign language, and refers to a template which has never existed (nonexistant, no deletion log). I'm guessing it was moved from a different language wikipedia, and then forgotten about. Not used according to what links here. Only one editor - I've notified him on his talk page. SeventyThree 07:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Colon el Tom 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was userfy Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Thermostat Bicker

I'm relisting this template on TfD per the deletion review decision. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. Pointless but harmless. Acceptable as "workspace decoration". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Harmless is not an inclusion criteria in Misplaced Pages. Pointless is most definitely a deletion criteria, though. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Don't try to shift the burden of proof. I don't have to give a reason to keep, you have to give a reason to delete. That's what assume good faith means. Encyclopedia standards don't apply in user space. And don't use the lame-ass excuse that it's in template space. No one reads template space as such. What's relevent is where it's expanded -- since it's always expanded in user space, user space rules apply. Lefty 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    - This thing is in Template: space, not userspace. Don't believe me? It has Template: right in front of it. --Cyde Weys 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, keep in some form anyway, even if its not in the template mainspace. I'll give some points for this going to a in-process TFD, and I'll call a userfy acceptable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Humorous boxes don't appear in the encyclopedia and improve user morale, thus improving the encyclopedia. Lefty 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Real life is raising its ugly head and I won't be responding for a few days.)
Userfy by substing - as it isn't helpful, it doesn't belong in the main template space - harmless in userspace.--Doc 10:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Substing is a piss-poor alternative. It's difficult to read, difficult to edit, and difficult to update. What you're suggesting is to throw up roadblocks to users' customization of pages, and you need to have a better reason than personal distaste. Assume good faith. Lefty 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Well said! --Dragon695 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy harmless, yet now that its being graded for actual templateness rather than being looked at through speedy delete standards, I suppose it wouldn't be very legal for it to remain a template rather than something in userspace. Homestarmy 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy - harmless, but not encyclopedic. Keep in the user namespace. -GTBacchus 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless joke. Misza13 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Harmless joke" is not an inclusion criteria on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - What Lefty said above. But soon it won't matter anyway. Misza 13 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, with userfy as a vaguely acceptable alternative. Such a colossal waste of time. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- So quit wasting our time by deleting harmless user boxes. Lefty 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, harmless joke. --Domthedude001 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Harmless joke" is not an inclusion criteria on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - What Lefty said above. But soon it won't matter anyway. Misza 13 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or userfy, but definitely does not belong in the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this trash, or userfy if you must. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Who am I to decide what's funny and what's not? If some people get their jollies out of this, I won't begrudge them that. TheJabberwʘck 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, a bit silly but ultimately harmless. --Eastlaw 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy. --GunnarRene 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
— nath a nrd o tcom 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If this is chucked out because it's pointless, surely there are plenty of other userboxes that will have to go with it? HilJackson 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Who cares? the wub "?!" 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Eastblock, Misza13, Domthedude, Sjakkalle, nathanrdotcom, Hijackson, Bagel7, myself -- and that's just the people who voted here. I'm not counting the people who've included it, or the creators of other humorous boxes, et al. I'm not going to do all your research. Lefty 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I know you meant the question rhetorically, but rhetorical questions fails if the point is wrong. P.P.S. WP:AGF
KEEP! this userbox is the best! - Bagel7 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless joke. --Dragon695 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy due to waste of server resources :) Just another star in the night 00:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirect Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Line 1 Green

Template:Line 1 Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I found this with a TFD tag, but not listed here. It looks like the only edit was in December 2004, which is strange (it would mean creation and tfd in one edit). Unused by what links here. No vote SeventyThree 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete: redundant to {{MTL Metro Green}}. TimBentley (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually a redirect would be fine. TimBentley (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, redundant to {{MTL Metro Green}}. --Domthedude001 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect, redundant. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect --GunnarRene 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Div 60

Delete - As one of the others who edited it I endorse this deletion. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Colon el Tom 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Marseille infobox

Template:Marseille infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (what links here + google); replaced in Marseille by {{Large French Cities}}. SeventyThree 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --larsinio (poke) 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Madeira

Template:Madeira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (by what links here), and redundant with {{Municipalities of Madeira}} (which is more inclusive). SeventyThree 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:RahXephon infobox

Template:RahXephon infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Meta-template that attempted to take the Template:Infobox animanga out of the article RahXephon. It was only used in the RahXephon article and has no potential of being used in any other article. It also made it more difficult for editors who wanted to modify the contents of the infobox. TheFarix (Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Made in the same spirit as Template:Republic_of_China_infobox. That template is not used on any other Article namespace pages either. The Template:RahXephon infobox has the potential of being used if RahXephon:Pluralitas Concentio, RahXephon_(manga) warrant creation. Delete until then. Also see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_infoboxes#Search_engine_appearance. --GunnarRene 08:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Russia infobox

This template needs deletion because it is a single-article infobox, and is not used even in the article on Russia.--Brendenhull (talk) | 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. -- MJCdetroit 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Baleet per nom. the wub "?!" 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

April 23, 2006

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Indiancopyright

Delete. Another "all rights reserved" copyright template. --Carnildo 22:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and above. You don't need to be too specific with copyrights. --Domthedude001 01:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The images belonging to Press Trust of India or other Indian domains, e.g. Image:Rastrapati ke angarakshak.jpg, have reserved rights. --Victor.P.Das 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Some images have reserved rights and to refer that we need this. - Vaikunda Raja 10:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Some images have reserved rights. Those images are generally not usable on Misplaced Pages and need to be deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy. --Carnildo 06:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy redirected by User:Constantine Evans. Circeus 16:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User United Kingdom resident

Template:User United Kingdom resident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This userbox was created to provide a temporary solution to a problem that has since been solved. That has basically made this userbox extraneous. Mal 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from AfD Morgan Wick 00:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, what's the problem? Redirect to {{User United Kingdom}}. --Domthedude001 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect --Misza 13 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect - and I just did. Is this an acceptable solution Setanta747? If so, you might consider delisting this.--Constantine Evans 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted/salted per CSD:G4. — xaosflux 12:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Uncyclopedia

Template:Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Successfully nominated for deletion multiple times in the past. For some reason it keeps getting re-created, this is the 4th time. Prior discussions here, here. Stbalbach 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete for the many reasons given in the July 2005 deletion (and protect the page to prevent more recreations. JoshuaZ 21:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per nom and above. --Domthedude001 01:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I Don't like Deleting Anything M:Inclusionism and I like the template but I understand why it needs to be deleted. Is it ok to have it not as a template but still on Flying Spaghetti Monster and other especially silly pages.--E-Bod 02:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: why is this even listed here? --Constantine Evans 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. What Constantine said. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom and others delete comments above. --FloNight 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Newinfobox Digimon

Template:Newinfobox Digimon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Originally created by User:Plau as a fork of {{Infoboxneeded}}, then subsequently used by myself as a sandbox to convert {{Infobox Digimon}} to conditionals. Can now use deletion. Circeus 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I did some improvements on Template:Infobox Digimon today. --Ligulem 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Technical2

Template:Technical2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is a near copy of the {{technical}} template. Does not add anything which couldn't be dealt with on the talk page of an article. AlyM 10:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Utverylong

Template:Utverylong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not the most helpful template. The appropriate length for a user talk page (the intended recipient of this template) is for that particular user to decide; if you feel strongly enough about it, leave a message, not a template. If it's any other talk page, archive it yourself. Delete. Tijuana Brass 08:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. --Domthedude001 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, nothing wrong with having it. I find it useful. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - useful. TheJabberwʘck 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why the two of you have called it useful, yet there are no links to it, either direct or via subst. Who exactly is this useful to? Tijuana Brass 06:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Just because it is not currently in use is not an adequate reason to delete. Nothing should be removed unless it is broken, wrong or harmful. --Blainster 07:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence the other reasons I listed above. Tijuana Brass 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

— nath a nrd o tcom 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it links to Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page which is good for newbies to learn. I put it on User talk:68.39.174.238. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If a user has been around long enough and got enough talk to need one of these, perhaps you should leave them a personal message yourself? I'm getting sick of all this template-talk, and if I got this message would consider it and its bolded "Important" rather rude. the wub "?!" 22:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per all above. It's quite appropriate and useful. Ardenn 00:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Manifold

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:HealthDisclaimer

Keep and change/delete the guidelines. See the reasons at Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer/Reasons. ackoz 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Disclaimers in specific articles increase Misplaced Pages's liability: if some articles have disclaimers, then any article that does not have a disclaimer can be assumed by the reader to not need one. And to make matters worse, articles without disclaimers are also the ones more likely to get the reader in trouble -- if someone's gone to the effort of adding a disclaimer to an article, they've probably also gone to the effort of making sure the article is reasonably accurate. --Carnildo 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please DO read the reasons I have listed before you reply. Your reasoning is a classic example of ignorance, because I suggested that: 1. All articles (not just some) should have a VISIBLE disclaimer (special for medical cases) and 2. the main concern are the articles which are in constant edit war and changed to non-VS R frequently. You are actually discussing nonexistent arguments. ackoz

22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I did read your reasons. I'm rather less than impressed by them. What's the appropriate disclaimer for M1 Abrams? Or Vernon-Dunlap School? How about George W. Bush, 1203, or J2000.0? --Carnildo 22:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand it is Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer.Geni 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete see responce to Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer#Reasons.Geni 22:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
OK As long as there is another chance to get the disclaimers from down there. ackoz 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per no disclaimer policy. --InShaneee 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per reasons at Misplaced Pages:No disclaimer templates guidelines. Primarily the reason stated here: The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Misplaced Pages to lawsuits. FloNight 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. (If a disclaimer is necessary, then Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer should be linked on all pages.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It is, in the footer. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: This is what the General Disclaimer is for. We do a pretty good job of keeping crackpots out, in my opinion, and if someone adds biased information about their profession, what keeps them from changing the disclaimer too? --Constantine Evans 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The disclaimer pages are long-term protected. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per "No disclaimer" policy someone already mentioned. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No disclaimers. Kaldari 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. the wub "?!" 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

April 22, 2006

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:SKT

Template:SKT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It's an "all rights reserved" copyright template -- somewhat less free than {{Permission}}. Carnildo 22:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 01:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Viva colour templates

Template:Viva Pink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Viva Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Viva Blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Viva Orange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Viva Purple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't see a reasonable purpose for these templates, and the creator hasn't provided any input as to how these templates could be used in an useful manner, other than being at Viva (bus rapid transit) (where I subst'ed them).—♦♦ SʘʘTHING 15:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. These templates do little beyond encouraging people to make articles more complex than necessary. David Arthur 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, these templates have no little purpose and should be removed. They aren't even being used anymore, delete.--Domthedude001 20:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Planetbox classification

Template:Planetbox classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is no officially-accepted system of planetary classification (what the hell is a "habitable jovian" anyway?), there is very little observational data available, so trying to implement some kind of appearance/classification system when all we have in most cases is a lower limit on the mass and an orbital period is just speculation. We are an encyclopaedia, not a speculative site like Extrasolar Visions (I think this is where the creator got the idea). Using this template for any real extrasolar planets makes it seem like we know more than we actually do about them. I'd advise removing it from all the articles it's been put in, and deleting the template. Chaos syndrome 10:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. Misplaced Pages must stay clear from this kind of speculation.--Jyril 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, this template serves very little purpose and should be removed. --Domthedude001 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment — Template should first be removed from the pages where it is already in use (70 Virginis and 47 Ursae Majoris). — RJH 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No original research. the wub "?!" 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Age

Oh so very "clever", but completely unnecessary. Why we would need to have an age calculation on an encyclopedia is beyond me. This function breaks the moment that someone tries to mirror our content. It is good enough just to note birthdates and leave it at that. Be on the lookout for much more cruft like this as a result of the poor decision to implement m:ParserFunctions. The documented reason for it's creation (Ever wonder how old your favorite child actor is?) is enough for me to want this one gone. -- Netoholic @ 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, this could be useful on userpages (for example, if someone wants to have their age displayed and have it kept up to date without editing it directly). Ditto for infoboxes that handle people (an age field that's always up to date). Etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. This would even be a good idea to do with the age userbox. --Domthedude001 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
Delete or userfy per nominator. There's no reason that this template should be used in the main namespace or the article talk page; information about the subject's birthdate should be in the article, not on the talk page. It can be userfied if this needs to be used on user pages. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I believe Ed was just demonstrating it on the talk page, not saying information about age/birth should be moved to the talk page exclusively. And, respectfully, I don't see why we shouldn't use this in the main article namespace (especially in, say, infobox templates about people). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (I've already userfied it). Misplaced Pages is not paper, and there's no reason to avoid dynamically-updated information, provided it's formatted properly and doesn't interfere with anything. I fully support any options which would facilitate "hiding" tables or columns which use templates like {{age}}. --Uncle Ed 02:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, move back to template-space and use it in any namespace as appropriate. Dynamic information is very important if Misplaced Pages ever wants to push past conventional encyclopedias in terms of what content it offers. Netoholic wants to make things "easy" for editors by making things hard for readers. This is not right, we should make things easy for both readers and editors by using and documenting properly these templates, Ed has been doing great work in this area. Pcb21 Pete 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - For all the reasons already stated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this template. It provides useful information, updates automatically rather than becoming 'out of date', and has no real drawbacks at all. --CBDunkerson 11:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep for all above reasons. What's interesting is that I just came up with this idea myself, opened Template:Age, got surprised that it already exists and absolutely shocked that someone wants it dead. I mean, if Tim Starling (or whoever else) created ParserFunctions, he was aware of the consequences. I'll even go bold and upgrade it so that one will be able to specify the date on which the age is measured (with default to {{CURRENT...}}). --Misza 13 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep for reasons already well stated. —Doug Bell 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep—Although my instinct is that it seems unnecessary, maybe this will help prevent errors caused by figuring age by subtraction of years. Ardric47 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- That it stays up-to-date automatically is a bigger advantage. Let's us get on with more important things Pcb21 Pete 07:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
— nath a nrd o tcom 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User SaintCliff

Template:User SaintCliff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On top of not being useful to building an encyclopedia, this userbox uses a fairuse image within it. Which is a big no no in the userbox world. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Changed image to a public domain image of an envelope. if anyone can think of something better, feel free, but it removes the fairuse complaint. viva la userboxen! --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep "Not being useful to building an encyclopedia"???? You've got to be kidding...that describes any userbox that relates to a user's personal interests, which is many, many user boxes and one of the key reasons for user boxes; so we can tell about ourselves. Also agree with user preschooler. Rlevse 12:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per preschooler and rlevse. MiraLuka 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Cliff is teh kewl!--Jguy 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I see no problem with it. --Misza 13 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep As per most of the above. Coffeeboy 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems harmless :/. Homestarmy 12:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. What preschooler did should have beeen done in the first place - no need for TFD. TheJabberwʘck 04:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Harmless.--Zpb52 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:User UN Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User supports UN

Template:User supports UN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Redundant. there is already a un-supporting userbox using exact words and almost identical at Template:User UN. an admin should speedy-delete. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete this one, the identical one, and the "anti-UN" box. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Nhprman 14:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this one only, as it is redundant. MiraLuka 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Template:User UN. —Andux 08:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect, duplicate of another userbox, non-standard userbox font size. Morgan Wick 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per above. --Misza 13 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per above. --Domthedude001 01:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Template:User UN as per above. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 07:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per T1. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Andux. Mgekelly - Talk 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

April 21, 2006

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Uruguay infobox

Delete - per nom. Chairman S. 23:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep the template, move it out of the template namespace, and redirect to Uruguay. — Insta ntnood 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 12:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Family

Delete as creator Kmorozov 12:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboy crashfan 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as per above. Chairman S. 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic, male-centric. Tijuana Brass 08:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above/nom. --Domthedude001 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Arrested Development

Template:Arrested Development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template was previously nominated, but was kept as it was still used. Now unused, as all the pages it links to have now been merged to Characters from Arrested Development. — sjorford (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unused. Royboy crashfan 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep/Comment, it is a good template, keep it. However, it should be on every page it links to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domthedude001 (talk • contribs) .
- There are no such pages - all the links on the template now redirect to Characters from Arrested Development. — sjorford (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Tijuana Brass 08:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirects to Template:Infobox Circeus 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Conditionals

Delete - The 'conditional war' is (hopefully) over and the new '#if:' feature has been integrated into 'Template:Infobox' thus making this separate template for demonstrating conditional logic redundant. --CBDunkerson 10:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Struck vote for now following the reversion of Template:Infobox to remove the #if: conditionals. If those are excluded from 'Infobox' then 'Infobox Conditionals' is no longer redundant. There is a straw poll to help decide whether there should be two (or more) example templates or one. --CBDunkerson 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Conditionals are evil, because they present a barrier to template editors who don't have advanced programming knowledge. Simple is good. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
comment: so because some ‘template editors’ (what are those?) — who probably won't need to edit these templates — might not have programming knowledge, we shouldn't make life easier for article editors? I'm not sure I follow your logic. ericg ✈ 17:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, contrary to what Netoholic believes, conditionals simplify templates and make them more accessible to editors using them. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to template:infobox. — Insta ntnood 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per above --Domthedude001 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Dino

Template:Dino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-scientifically named template which contains only five words. The template was created and used on four pages, but subsequently was removed from all four pages (by me) because the single sentence inside the template ("This animal is a dinosaur.") was redundant: each article already stated that fact. No further information was given, no discussion was made anywhere before the template was created, and the template now links to nothing. User who created the template is a new editor on WikiPedia and is not familiar with WP processes or the general guidelines used on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dinosaurs.--Firsfron 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.Dinoguy2 03:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Someone new learning the ropes. No harm done. --CBDunkerson 10:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per CBDunkerson -- tylerwillis 14:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per CBDunkerson Nhprman 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not likely to be used. Royboy crashfan 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But this template is not just unlikely to be used; it can't be used. A sentence that defines the animal as a dinosaur would quite likely be followed by what type of dinosaur it was, which cannot be added to the template, unless all dinosaurs used with this generic dinosaur template are the same kind of dinosaur. And an editor who wanted to add information on the animal might likely be confused that a sentence was suddenly "missing" in the article, replaced with the ambiguous "template:dino", when s/he goes to edit the article. You can imagine the "fun" an editor might have trying to edit such an article. --Firsfron 21:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete for the record, my vote.--Firsfron 21:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, You don't need a template that says simply five words... It won't kill someone to write it... As CBDunkerson said, someone new is learning the ropes, probably testing ... --Domthedude001 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

April 20, 2006

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:In-progress tvshow

Template:In-progress tvshow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Why do we need this template? It takes away the creditability of a lot of pages that are otherwise fine. If we are going to allow this, we should also have a template for living people articles saying something likes this: "This person has yet to live his/hers life. The article content might change if he/her does something."

Keep it I think we should keep it. dposse 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ---Maitch 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Everything that exists in the world is "in progress". A template for future TV shows is fine, but this one seems to imply that it's okay to add speculation and original research to articles just because they are about something that currently exists. Kafziel 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete This template implies that the information might somehow be wrong, when it isn't in most cases. Everything on those pages is usually based on the current information given. That information usually isn't nullified in most cases. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there are some cases where information might become nullified, but it's still notable overall, and articles tend to be updated when it happens. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Someguy0830, I know you are an active TV topic contributor, would you possibly care to help in cleaning up the by me mentioned situation (below) ? - The DJ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep if Reworded The template is good. It tells us the show is in progress, which is good to know. However, it's saying it's okay to speculate. That part should be removed. Once that part is removed, I say Keep.
- Keep if Reworded As per above. -- tylerwillis 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated above Cyclone49 00:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's unnecessary; people should already be aware that pages for still-running TV shows are going to be updated as the series progresses, and it should be readily apparent from the infobox whether a show is still running or not. Additionally, the template interferes with page layout.Raymondluxuryacht 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Useless. Manmonk 00:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom MiraLuka 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep not that i don't agree with the points above, but I believe this template's TRUE function should be as a warning on shows/seasons such as Idols, which are basically in the same order as current sporting events. I agree that in it's current form it's not OK, but untill WP:TV makes up their mind what to do about the temporal situation of Series/seasons/episodes, I'd rather see it being kept around and misused, instead of being ripped from wikipedia and losing the potential information still contained in the collection of articles that this template creates. Note that the current wording is actually from YESTERDAY. I'm trying to work out the overlap, incorrect use etc of {{Future tvshow}} {{Future TV series}} and {{In-progress tvshow}}, after the recent TfD of {{Future tvshow}}, but if ppl start TfD'ing all of them before even the slightest discussion on their talk pages, then you are NOT being very helpful. - The DJ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Definitely appropriate, though in need of sorting out. Circeus 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have opened a discussion on the temporal templates and categories regarding television content. People are welcomed to join that and spew their ideas/agrees/disagrees - The DJ 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (if Reworded)/Comment There's a template for current events that warns a page might be changing frequently, and granted it's probably only going to be on a weekly basis, but I think having one for in-progress TV shows is good also. I agree with the above comment to get rid of the speculative part though; that should be a separate section in articles that wish to deal with that. (Comment: Perhaps it should be reworded to only be used when a show is in the middle of a season?) --SSTwinrova 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already stated --Charlie 03:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the above stated reasons to delete and per my reasons for deleting the future tvshow template. Pegasus1138 ---- 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (after rewording) --Thankyoubaby 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete very ugly. sinblox 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, totally unnecessary. Royboy crashfan 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, just work it out, though. Pacific Coast Highway • 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, for many of the reasons already stated. --cholmes75 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've seen a lot of votes on here that say this tag is useful because it tells us the show is in progress. The article should tell us that, not a maintenance tag. Tags are meant to be temporary; TV shows can go on and on for decades. If it's a current show, the prose itself should indicate that. In fact, simply not including a cancellation date indicates that by default. Kafziel 16:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, the template serves a function for articles on (as an example) American Idol contestants, who have achieved a degree of notability yet arguably have not yet established this notability. Just as with articles which document current events, the facts influencing the notability of the articles' subjects may change. Therefore, my vote is to Keep after rewording, or else another template should be developed for this function. -- SwissCelt 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when American Idol became the benchmark for template policy, but this is the second time I've seen it used as an example (and, in fact, the only example I've seen). Either someone's notability is established or it is not. Individual contestants should not have their own articles until they have established notability, at which point that notability should be spelled out for the reader in prose. Simply appearing on television does not automatically mean a person is a celebrity, and there is plenty of precedent for that. In either case, whether they have become notable or not, there's nothing in this tag that can't be written in the body of the article instead.

Since we're using examples, how about this one: General Hospital is a current show. It's been on for such a long time that it was interrupted so news of the Kennedy assassination could get out back in 1963. It will probably be on for another 40 or 50 years. It will always be in progress, and it shouldn't have a tag on it to say so. If for some reason American Idol needs some kind of disclaimer, I would have no problem with that. But to tag the hundreds or thousands of other shows just because of that? No way. Kafziel 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know, New Orleans, Louisiana has existed for nearly 300 years. Yet last fall, it still had Template:Current on it. This template appears to be intended to serve a similar function, to note articles that may be edited more frequently. And anyway, if you feel those articles do not belong on Misplaced Pages for lack of notability, the WP:AFD process is available to you. -- SwissCelt 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Current relates to a specific and ongoing event, the details of which can be subject to change at any moment. Such a claim is not nearly as applicable in the case of most TV shows. Episodes air, you have slightly more information, old information tends to remain valid. Reality shows like American Idol are no exception. Every episode eliminates some people or something to that effect, article is updated, there's no problem. This template does nothing but state the obvious. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep, So don't use it on articles where being in-progress does not effect credibility. Articles such as Digimon Savers however, does lack credibility do to it being in-progress. -- Ned Scott 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article already tells people that. It doesn't need to be stated twice. Besides, it doesn't lack credibility, it lacks information. That information it does have is credible. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Trust me, it lacks credibility. You can not trust all the information in that article, as well as many others. I understand if this is not the case for some TV shows, then ok, they don't have to use this template. But when fandom causes lots of unverifiable information to be added, and to much for anyone to catch all of it and try to source it, a warning of this nature is completely appropriate. If this template does get deleted I plan on just using the actual wikicode into the articles themselves. I understand if it's something like a typical sitcom, or it's The Price is Right, and they wouldn't need such a warning. But to make the claim that this decision is good for all TV show articles is ridiculous. If anything, we should be discussing which articles should use the warning and which ones should not. This is no different from using a warning that says an article is about an in progress event, or might be controversial. Yes, the article says it's a show in progress, but this warning is not to give information about the status of a show, it's a warning about the article itself. -- Ned Scott 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per reasons stated above. FireSpike 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons already listed. - Digresser 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per reasons above. ArgentiumOutlaw 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep it, per reasons above. --Domthedude001 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and users above. M2K e 22:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but reword. It needs to be clearer that the speculative part is the future episodes of the show. This template is far from alone - see Misplaced Pages:Current_and_future_event_templates. Mike Peel 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and users above --DChiuch 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, reword.-- SonicAD (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Mike Peel makes a good point, there are already templates for the kind of thing we're talking about. Personnaly, I don't think it's necessary to have a separate sports future event or election future event, but just because they exist, does not mean we should feel free to add more clutter. The true purpose of this tag is to warn people about the changing nature of future television shows. There is a tag for that, {{future}}. Comment If you do decide to keep it, please change the graphics to be standard with other future event notices. --Bantab 11:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So you would say replace all instances with the {{future}} tag, and then remove the template in question? Mike Peel 11:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bantab-From what I can tell, your saying we remove every single current template and replace it with the future template. But why would we do that? That would mean the current tv shows would say they are taking place in the future. You said this tag is to warn people about future tvshows. What do you mean by that? Because if this tag is on a page, it's a current tv show. People don't put these on tv shows that haven't happened. They put them on ones that are happeningm like they should. And also, why would we merge it with the future tvshow. That's up for deletion also. (Sorry for the long comment)TeckWiz 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- getcrunk juice 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, per nom. This template is useless.--Fallout boy 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Hench 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary because the introduction of the article should clearly establish that the topic is a programme currently in production. --NormanEinstein 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reason stated - totally unnecessary, distracting. --Jacj 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep If we delete, sooner or later we'll cobble something together that is similar enough anyway. NP Chilla 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated. Dylan 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Mrtea (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Driller thriller 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - In the same sense that we have a template for rapidly-changing current events, this template serves to warn the reader that they are looking at a rapidly-changing subject matter. --RayaruB 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What TV show has the potential to change every hour (or minute) of every day? That's the only kind of situation where the current event template is used. Not even American Idol changes that rapidly. Hell, not even Jeopardy changes that rapidly, and it's on every day. Kafziel 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete if a TV show article is updated frequently due to changing circumstances, the current events tag seems perfectly appropriate to me. The vast majority of TV show articles don't fit that criterion, I think. Tuf-Kat 01:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but limit use and reword accordingly. I think it should only be used for reality shows and other competition where a contestant is eliminated, or something else noteworthy happens, every week. (or every other week, or episode, etc.) --zenohockey 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep its similar to the current events template and shows that the article may rapidly change, especially when a new episode airs. -Reuvenk 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same thing I asked RayaruB: What TV show has the potential to change every hour (or minute) of every day? That's the only kind of situation where the current event template is used. We don't use the current events tag on subjects that only change once a day or once a week. What show has a new episode more than once a day? Kafziel 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AlistairMcMillan 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

An alternative to just "delete" or "keep"

Comment I really think the issue here is not about the template itself, but about which articles should use the template and which should not. All the people who are voting to delete seem to only care about getting the template warning off articles where it is not needed, and the people voting keep seem to know of articles where the warning is appropriate and useful. The "vote count" doesn't seem to be showing any kind of consensus, and I doubt that this is the right way to resolve this issue. I think people have specific examples stuck in their heads and might not be considering different examples.

I have yet to see someone bring up a single article where it was argued to use the template and to not use the template. This leads me to believe that we can satisfy both sides of this dispute.

I would like to make a new proposal for what to do:

We should do two things: 1, re-write the template as others have requested above and 2, establish guidelines via such groups as WikiProjects Television, Anime and manga, and others, for which in-progress TV articles should include the template and which in-progress TV articles should not.

Your alternative is to continue this endless debate with no real points being made. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Support -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Partially support -- This isn't really a pointless debate, since delete votes outnumber keep by a fair amount, but your proposal is good. Personally, I think this template really doesn't apply in the majority of circumstances. Barring special events, most show articles tend to recieve major updates once every week or so. The major information between those times will tend stay the same, even though it may be reorganized or reworded. Pure speculation, such as the template suggests might be there, generally shouldn't be. That is something that really should be removed rather than just telling people it's there. To suggest a specific set, I would say that it's appropriate only for some reality shows (Idol, Survivor, and the like). – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - It seems almost everyone agrees that the template is unacceptable the way it is. Even most of the "keep" votes are contingent on a re-write. I still think it should be deleted completely, because even reality show articles and anime should explain in prose that the show is ongoing. The way I look at it, we're supposed to be working toward making every article featured-status worthy. No article would make it through FAC with this template intact. So this proposal is pretty much a given anyway; either the template will be deleted, or it will be drastically altered and removed from most of the articles it's currently on. I'd prefer to delete it but, yes, this option is certainly plan B. Kafziel 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That works in theory, but not in practice. I'd rather not lie to readers in order to make the article look better. That's misleading. The fact that such warnings can be applied to any article gives the ones without the warnings more creditability. When no one disputes an article that many people have worked on, I tend to trust it a bit more. But to just be blind like that, that is misleading to the reader. That is telling the reader this article is something it's not.

When it is an in-progress something, usually there are is a great increase of edits, usually too many to always keep on top of. That's why we have these warnings, because we know the very nature of the edits at that time, and that we can't always be there to watch the article 24/7. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's a problem on an article, then use the template. If it's not a problem on an article, then don't use it. If there was no problem I doubt most of the keeps here would be defending the template. Pretending there is no problem is not a solution. -- Ned Scott 22:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Was all this stuff meant as a reply to me? I don't see how it applies to what I said. I don't want to lie to readers, I don't want to pretend there is no problem. I want to get rid of the template. Kafziel 22:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not lying to readers by deleting this template. The article should already be clear on the fact that a show is still running. One can assume from that context that edits will be more frequent. Also, unless they edit the article on a regular basis, most editors will likely not be caught up in all the edit history, and will just fix things as they see fit. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lie" is a bit strong, but it's still misleading. You guys seem to think Misplaced Pages is flawless, and that everyone's going to follow the rules in regards to these articles. You seem to ignore the waves of fanboys and fangirls who flood many TV show articles with tons of crap. TV show articles that do not have this situation should not have this template, but the ones that do SHOULD. I'm sorry if this doesn't fit your little vision that Misplaced Pages can do no wrong. We owe it to the readers to warn them of articles that lack credibility. If the article does not lack credibility, then DON'T ADD THE TEMPLATE. But there are many articles that do lack credibility, and the do so because of being an in-progress show. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that fanboys can add trivia and crap to any TV series - even those who has already ended. My problem with this template is the use of "in-progress". It is to broad a definition and targets way more articles than necessary. What we need is a template specifically designed to the problem you are describing. I propose the following template {{TVtrivia}}, in which the message should say something like "This TV related article is filled with too much trivia. Please stop adding more and help reducing the amount". --Maitch 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Ned, if you think I'm not aware of the "fanboy" problem, you might want to take a look at my recent history with Zarbon and the pages related to The Sopranos and The Shield. I've been dealing with that stuff longer than you've been on Misplaced Pages, so please don't tell me what I think. I know people put stupid stuff on pages. Fix it. If they do it again, fix it again. If they do it again, fix it again. That's Misplaced Pages. A template isn't going to stop people from adding unencyclopedic content, and in this case it actually encourages it. I spend a great deal of my time on Misplaced Pages removing fanboy content from movies, television, and music articles, and if I thought this template would help at all I'd be all for it. But it won't. Kafziel 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Support --Pacific Coast Highway • 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'm repeating myself here, but I have opened a discussion on the temporal templates and categories regarding television content. People are welcomed to join that and spew their ideas/agrees/disagrees - The DJ 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Venezuela infobox

Template:Venezuela infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated and updated to the Template:Infobox Country standard. It is easier to edit now. Venezuela infobox is a single use template. There is no more need for it. MJCdetroit 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep the template, move it out of the template namespace, and redirect to Venezuela. — Insta ntnood 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - needs to be converted into standard country template first. gren グレン 06:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Keep. Mrsteviec 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:UK stations

Found three infoboxes that supercede this as a better (in my opinion) version these are
Template:Infobox UK medium railway station
Template:Infobox UK minor railway station
and Template:Infobox UK major railway station.
Your thoughts would be appreciated thanks. My thinking is that four solutions are possible:

Keep the original, delete the new versions
Keep the new ones, delete this one
Edit the old to hold a bit more information, in turn deleting new vers.
Edit the new one, to get rid of unencyclopaedic info, in turn deleting old vers.

DannyM 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC).

Keep. The original is more encyclopedic. Are toilets and telephones really needed in an encyclopedia? I've had a good look at these and they contain far too much of What Misplaced Pages is not. I recommend we redirect them to original template and look to add any additional fields to that. Mrsteviec 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Okay is see the argument for keeping, so despite becoming a hypocrite I think keeping is a good idea if the older version gets some more detail as I believe it's got too little detail, whereas the other one has too much, sorry for contradicting myself! DannyM 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the new ones are less encyclopaedic and too cluttered. All the information is sourced from from station info page on the National Rail website to which all the articles link already. There is little point in duplicating effort. Thryduulf 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep whichever template that doesn't occupy three-quarters of the page! I agree with the previous comment - no need to duplicate the NR website leaky_caldron 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Having thought about it, there is the problem of "too much information". Is the presence of baby-changing facilities or bicycle lockers notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Probably not. Besides, all that sort of information is available from the National Rail Station Information pages, which are automatically linked via the {{stn art lnk}} and {{stn art lrnk}} templates, so we don't need to duplicate it. --RFBailey 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Is this debate still open or is it closed? The reason I ask is that someone has changed all of the new templates into redirects to the old one without removing the delete proposal. Either restore the old pages so users can actively debate them, or close the debate and remove the delete proposal. Road Wizard 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If this debate is still open, should the Template:British stations also be considered for deletion? Or does someone need to propose it for deletion separately? Road Wizard 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No. It is a near-identical duplicate. I have redirected it into the UK stations template and adjusted the few articles that linked to it. Mrsteviec 07:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

- Comment: There is a bit of confusion about which is the "new" template here. The tbree infoboxes (major/medium/minor) were created in October 2005 by User:Sloman. (I had some discussion with Sloman about them at that time). The {{UK stations}} template (which seems to be perceived as the "old" one) only appeared in March 2006, being created by User:Mrsteviec and is an adaptation of the {{London stations}} (which he also created) which has been around since September 2005. As for {{British stations}}, this appears to be an independent attempt by User:Smurrayinchester to adapt the London template, also appearing in March 2006. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, that one can be replaced with whatever we come up with here, regardless. --RFBailey 22:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

- I'm not sure who wants to keep what, but the Euston infobox has way too much info. Studd about toilets etc is easily available from the external link. It does not belong here. We can't keep it up to date - its obsessive detail. --Concrete Cowboy 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is time to close this debate as no one can be found to support deletion and the original opposer has withdrawn the proposal. Mrsteviec 06:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

- I have objectied my self, how do we close said debate? DannyM 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep They are all nearly identical. Lcarsdata 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, just to clarify,I used old (though incorrect), as its the one I used first, and I should know it as the newer one as I with help of Mrsteviec created it, sorry for confusion DannyM 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Phh:Reader/

Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - other help pages don't work as expected if it's integrated into Template:Phh:Reader(edit talk links history) as explained on the talk page. -- Omniplex 09:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- As explained at the talk page, they look identical to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- We looked at the right pages at the wrong times, at the moment it's okay again. For the source of this episode in the #if:-crusade see also WP:MV. -- Omniplex 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  - You know, labeling things a "crusade" is hardly a way to foster discussion. Generally I'd rather use a conditional than fork a template (resulting in two things to watch, two things to synchronize, two things to ... ?, etc). Also, another thing I have an issue with is your choice of naming in these templates; the "/" (forward slash) is very subtle, and given that it's usually pushed up against a "|" (pipe), easy to miss. I've tried to avoid being cruel/mean/evil during this as well, but when you revert war over it it's hard not to introduce the "nuclear option" of TFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I perceive it as your "crusade", I could even live with the WP:HIDE solution after adding a default none instead of the obscure {{{1}}}. But you insisted on changing it to {{Qif}} for most Misplaced Pages header templates. I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal {{ifdef}}. My first attempt was wrong, three days ago Paddu published the explanation on Ifdef, I documented it (test cases + caveats), and implemented it as planned in the header templates replacing {{Qif}}.
    
    Hours later you replaced it by #if: as discussed in the ifdef-Tfd. Trying to solve an ugliness with WP:MV I finally saw that Qif / ifdef / #if: are all unnecessary, and what's really needed is a single point of maintenance {{Shortcut/}} (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for {{Phh:Reader/}}. It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
    
    But now you insisted on if: and sent those two to Tfd. The output of your solution wasn't what we saw until yesterday, the old style is better. For the case "no optional shortcut" in {{Phh:Reader}} you could fix it (unfortunately not for "given shortcut(s)"), but your all in one solution uses {{Qif}} again, essentially two templates squeezed into one. Side by side diff of your {{Phh:Reader}} vs. my {{Phh:Reader/}}, this makes no sense. The big standalone {{shortcut}} and the small optional table cell {{shortcut/}} are different. Like {{Tl}} and {{Tlp}} are different, and no fork. -- Omniplex 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal {{ifdef}}
    
    Then change {{qif}}, don't fork. If I'm on any particular crusade here, it's a crusade against forks when they're unnecessary.
    ...what's really needed is a single point of maintenance {{Shortcut/}} (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for {{Phh:Reader/}}. It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
    
    And now {{Shortcut}} has been updated and works just fine without the unnecessary {{Shortcut/}}. Again, my "crusade" here is against forks. Forks are bad. Forks are evil. Do not fork.
    
    I also strongly disagree with you that the styling you used was "better". The standard {{shortcut}} looked okay inside a header box as well as by itself on a page, but now there's a padding issue (see WP:BN and, in modern browsers anyways, how the top line of the shortcut box no longer aligns with the top line of the navigation box).
    
    Again, you just don't get what a fork is, and somehow you think what you've done isn't forking. Whenever you introduce yet another place to update the styling of Misplaced Pages, that's (IMO) forking unless you have a very good reason. You don't have one that I can tell, especially when you've been shown it can be done without forking. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Shortcut/

Template:Shortcut/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary fork of {{Shortcut}} (note the forward slash in this templates name). Creating forked templates only further complicates things and provides more places to update the style of Misplaced Pages. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: template forks are evil and merely serve to confuse and bewilder. Users should not require Yellow Pages for templates to determine which of the 17 varieties they should use in any given context. —Phil | Talk 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - subtle differences: {{Shortcut}} is for big standalone shorcut, not integrated into tables, with a required parameter, one or more shortcuts. On the other hand {{shortcut/}} is for conditional table cells, in exactly the style used e.g. on Village pump pages, policies, guidelines, etc. It's far better for maintenance to have one solution for that instead of dozens. Besides it needs no 'if:, ifndef, qif, or display:hide construct at all. Better to have that in one template, instead of repeating conditional code and CSS in almost all Category:Misplaced Pages header templates individually. It's of course no fork. -- Omniplex 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Look. When you want to change the way things appear visually, you make the change to the template. You don't fork the template to change how it appears to your liking. More templates = more complexity (more things to watch, more things that can get vandalized, more things to change when people decide the appearance should be updated, etc). And in this case, it's totally unnecessary. Most pages already used {{shortcut}} before you came along with this and they looked fine. Please stop forking things when they don't look exactly right to you. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I want to keep it as it looked yesterday. That's AFAIK your CSS (?). It can't be mine, my browser ignores CSS. All I need is the <small> as it was the whole year until yesterday. -- Omniplex 12:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so we need to get {{shortcut}} changed, not create a fork. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed my ~~Keep~~ based on CBDunkerson's new Template:Shortcut(edit talk links history). -- Omniplex 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above arguments by Locke Cole. - The DJ 10:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete If we assume that the methodology here is superior to that used previously then the correct action would be to update 'shortcut' to follow the new methodology... not create a different version of shortcut. That is, by definition, a fork. --CBDunkerson 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The code can't be joined, it's far too different. If you think it's possible just do it or propose a solution. Requirement: The same look and feel as yesterday for affected header templates. -- Omniplex 12:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what it looked like yesterday, but I made changes to 'shortcut' which should make it work the same as 'shortcut/'. --CBDunkerson 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
See above (19:03, 20 April 2006 #Template:Phh:Reader/) for the history back to the WP:HIDE wars from my POV.

Your new code is nice, maybe eliminate align="center" typically implied by <th> and add </th>, but it should work as is. However now you have the same size also for standalone shortcuts - IMHO it's fine, but a matter of taste. -- Omniplex 19:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. —Rob (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Locke Cole. -- ADNghiem501 06:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pacific Coast Highway 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Template linking and transclusion check – Toolforge tool to see which pages are transcluded but not linked from or to a template
WhatLinksHereSnippets.js – user script that allows for template use to be viewed from the Special:WhatLinksHere page
AutoWikiBrowser – semi-automatic editor that can replace or modify templates using regular expressions
Bots – robots editing automatically. All tasks have to be approved before operating. There are currently five bots with general approval to assist with implementing TfD outcomes:
- AnomieBOT – substituting templates via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster
- SporkBot – general TfD implementation run by Plastikspork
- PrimeBOT – general TfD implementation run by Primefac
- BsherrAWBBOT – general TfD implementation run by Bsherr
- PearBOT II – general TfD implementation run by Trialpears

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

Template:Infobox_tropical_cyclone 2024 March 10 – Infobox_tropical_cyclone ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_storm 2024 March 10 – Infobox_storm ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:WikiProject_Glass 2024 November 5 – WikiProject_Glass ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:PIE2024 December 3 – PIE ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Instances should be replaced with {{lang|ine-x-proto}}. If the instance contains a phrase or sentence, |proto=no should be added to suppress the asterisk. —Compassionate727 14:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Merge into the singular {{infobox ship}} (currently a redirect):
- Template:Infobox_ship_begin 2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_career 2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics 2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_characteristics ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_class_overview 2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_class_overview ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_image 2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_image ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_service_record2022 April 30 – Infobox_service_record ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  I have hacked Module:Infobox ship which implements ship infoboxen without the external wikitable that the above templates require. Uses Module:Infobox; {{infobox ship begin}} is no longer required; parameter names are changed from sentence- to snake-case; section header height for career, characteristics, service record sections is normalized; custom fields are supported. I chose to retain the individual section templates as subtemplates:
  - {{Infobox ship/image}}
  - {{Infobox ship/career}}
  - {{Infobox ship/characteristic}}
  - {{Infobox ship/class}}
  - {{Infobox ship/service record}} – Module:Infobox ship implements only the 'ship' portion of {{Infobox service record}}
  In the main infobox these subtemplates are called with the |section<n>= parameters (aliases of |data<n>=).
  
  Comparisons between wikitable infoboxen and Module:Infobox ship infoboxen can bee seen at my sandbox (permalink).
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  Since the intent is to use Module:Infobox directly, why is Module:Infobox ship being used to generate the infobox? I can understand if there is need for a backend module to validate a value or something, but is there really a reason to have this unique code? Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  The original complaint was that the ship infoboxen templates are table templates masquerading as infobox templates. None of those templates use Module:Infobox. Module:Infobox ship answers that complaint. Yeah, we still have subtemplates, but, in my opinion, that is a good thing because the appropriate parameters and their data are contained in each particular subtemplate. The container subtemplates make it relatively easy for an editor reading an article's wikitext to understand. The current ship infobox system allows sections in any order (except for the position of {{infobox ship begin}} – not needed with Module:Infobox ship); whatever the final outcome of this mess, that facility must not be lost.
  
  Module:Infobox ship does do some error checking (synonymous parameters |ship_armor= / |ship_armour=, |ship_draft= / |ship_draught=, |ship_honors= / |ship_honours=, and |ship_stricken= / |ship_struck=). Whether {{infobox ship}} directly calls Module:Infobox or whether {{infobox ship}} calls Module:Infobox ship which then calls Module:Infobox is really immaterial so long as the final rendered result is a correctly formatted infobox.
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  @Trappist the monk are you still interested in working on this Module? If not, I'd like to try to get it finished myself. The massive deviation I had in mind was to make one invocation of the module do everything. Each page will require individual attention to complete the merge into a proper infobox anyway, so I reason to go the extra mile to make it nicer in general. Repeatable parameters will have the normal n number appended to the end of the parameter. An alternative would be to have subboxes for repeating sections, which would be easier in general to replace and implement. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  Sure, but I don't think that this page is the proper place to discuss. Choose some place more proper and let me know where that is?
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Replacement with {{Infobox aircraft}}:
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_type 2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_type ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_career 2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_program 2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_program ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_begin 2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_engine2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_engine ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
  - For {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, There is an ongoing discussion about whether the aircraft engine Infobox should be merged with the Infobox aircraft or not. Except for the engine Infobox, other Infoboxes can be orphaned and there are no objection for that. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
    - This discussion is still ongoing, so I have moved it back to the "to merge" list with the others. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    - The discussion has now ended (diff), with the consensus NOT TO MERGE {{Infobox aircraft engine}} with the others. However {{infobox aircraft begin}} may or may not end up being merged into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. The template pages should be updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox_climber 2024 June 29 – Infobox_climber ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_mountaineer 2024 June 29 – Infobox_mountaineer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Merge into {{Infobox NFL biography}} and rename to {{Infobox gridiron football biography}}
- Template:Infobox_Canadian_Football_League_biography 2024 November 18 – Infobox_Canadian_Football_League_biography ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_NFL_biography 2024 November 18 – Infobox_NFL_biography ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_gridiron_football_person 2024 November 18 – Infobox_gridiron_football_person ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Navigation templates

None currently

Link templates

Template:Lx 2023 October 1 – Lx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Pagelinks2023 October 1 – Pagelinks ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Because Lx has the option to hide certain links and PageLinks itself doesn't, a direct merge is impossible. The next best thing would be to convert the transclusions to invocations of Module:PageLinks. Doesn't look too impossible at first glance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  Problem: Lx's 20,000 transclusions are kinda fake, because almost all of them are transclusions of transclusions.
  Even if we restrict it to the template namespace, most of those are transclusions of transclusions of transclusions in the doc subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  The more I look at this, the more it appears technically infeasible. Lx has some really bizarre arguments like tag and label which can't be replicated by Module:PageLinks. When Lx was used to link to a normal page, namespace is usually Talk and label is usually talk, but when it's used to link to a talk page, either could be anything. Also, the recursive transclusion issue means the only way to get our pages would be an insource search, which means we'd also have to deal with pages like this.Replacing all uses of the format \{\{x\|1=\|2=(.*)\|3=Talk\|4=talk\}\} with {{Pagelinks|$1}} could be a start. From there, I'm totally lost. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  What if we only replaced uses matching an insource search in the template namespace, and then substed everything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:See_also_if_exists 2024 December 13 – See_also_if_exists ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:See_also 2024 December 13 – See_also ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Other

Template:Football_squad_player22020 February 1 – Football_squad_player2 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and Template:Football_squad_player2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Note Pending Redesign RfC robertsky (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  - I've closed the RfC. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  - Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:Auto_compact_TOC 2023 March 6 – Auto_compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Compact_TOC 2023 March 6 – Compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Wikisource author 2023 July 5 – Wikisource author ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Wikisourcelang2023 July 5 – Wikisourcelang ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Hi now that {{Wikisourcelang}} is being merged, how do I use the merge target template to point to sister language Wikisources? All the links keep incorrectly pointing to the English version and the documentation of {{Wikisource}} has not been updated about this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  - Folly Mox, the merge has not yet been completed, so you should use the appropriate currently-existing template to do whatever it is you are planning until the merge is complete. The existing uses will be converted appropriately at that time. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
    - Oops, I forgot I had posted here. My assertion was incorrectly based on the first instance I had tested, which had been misusing parameters in such a way that it worked prior to the start of the merge process but not afterwards. The links to en.s/lang:page do properly redirect if the parameters are used correctly, but I didn't initially follow the links to check. It was quite an embarrassing hour or so of my contribution history. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Wikisourcehas2023 July 5 – Wikisourcehas ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional padverages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- For over a year now we have been instructed not to use {{Wikisource author}}, {{Wikisourcelang}} and {{Wikisourcehas}} and this is a nuisance because avoiding their use is not at all trivial. Can we have a report on progress with the merge, please, or permission to again use these templates? Thincat (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  - See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Facebook_page 2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:R_fully_protected 2024 September 17 – R_fully_protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_template-protected 2024 September 17 – R_template-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_extended-protected 2024 September 17 – R_extended-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_semi-protected 2024 September 17 – R_semi-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_protected 2024 September 17 – R_protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:AfD_new_user 2024 October 18 – AfD_new_user ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:At_school_occasional 2024 November 22 – At_school_occasional ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:At_school 2024 November 22 – At_school ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Cricket_Result 2024 December 6 – Cricket_Result ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Cricket_result 2024 December 6 – Cricket_result ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:STN 2024 December 6 – STN ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Station 2024 December 6 – Station ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Incomprehensible 2024 December 13 – Incomprehensible ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Confusing 2024 December 13 – Confusing ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Plural_form 2024 December 4 – Plural_form ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Plural_abbr 2024 December 4 – Plural_abbr ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:WPBASEBALL_assessment_level_category 2024 December 8 – WPBASEBALL_assessment_level_category ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:WPANIMATION_assessment_quality_work_group_level 2024 December 8 – WPANIMATION_assessment_quality_work_group_level ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:WikiProject_Television_task_force_assessment_category 2024 December 8 – WikiProject_Television_task_force_assessment_category ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:WPANIMATION_assessment_quality_work_group_level 2024 December 8 – WPANIMATION_assessment_quality_work_group_level ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:How-to 2024 December 3 – How-to ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) merge {{manual}} into this template
Template:Manual 2024 December 3 – Manual ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) merge into {{how-to}}

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

2023 October 25
- Template:R to related 2023 October 25 – R to related ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} as appropriate
- Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
  Started toying with this and came to the conclusion that I was very the wrong person because there are definitely cases where the appropriate template is neither of the two of interest. We need to leave this refinement on the user talk pages of some people who know what they're doing. Izno (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca 2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca 2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia 2024 April 25 – Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:S-s 2024 September 30 – S-s ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Lang-crh3 2024 November 4 – Lang-crh3 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
perhaps convert to something like {{lang-sr-Latn-Cyrl}} which wraps {{lang-x2}}. Example using {{lang-x2}} as a mockup:
Crimean Tatar: Bır Hacı Geray, بیر-حاجى كراى‎ ← {{lang-crh3|Bır Hacı Geray|بیر-حاجى كراى}}

Crimean Tatar: Bır Hacı Geray, بیر-حاجى كراى ← {{lang-x2|crh|Bır Hacı Geray|script2=Arab|بیر-حاجى كراى}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject_Buckethead_task_force 2024 November 14 – WikiProject_Buckethead_task_force ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Merge target needs clarification. The target is a wrapper of biography, but the task force is under WikiProject Guitarists which uses Template:WikiProject Guitarists. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Template:KWh 2024 December 6 – KWh ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Replace with {{WikiProject Cricket|Asia=yes}}
- Template:WikiProject_Bangladesh_Premier_League 2024 November 14 – WikiProject_Bangladesh_Premier_League ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:WikiProject_Pakistan_Super_League 2024 November 14 – WikiProject_Pakistan_Super_League ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:WikiProject_Indian_Premier_League 2024 November 14 – WikiProject_Indian_Premier_League ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Replace with {{Political parties in the Netherlands}} and {{Defunct political parties in the Netherlands}} as appropriate:
- Template:Liberal_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands 2024 December 10 – Liberal_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Socialist_parties_in_the_Netherlands 2024 December 10 – Socialist_parties_in_the_Netherlands ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:FCC_letter 2024 December 16 – FCC_letter ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

None currently

Template:User not-Drug-free

I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

Template:User Hell

This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-( Plaese click here to start a new debate

Debates

April 29, 2006

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User antifa-01

Speedy Delete: Pro-Communist and Anti-Fascist or Anti-Communist and Pro-Fascist. Advocating the destruction of one group, and violently depicting it, while supporting another. This seems pretty inflammatory and divisive to me. --Khat Wordsmith 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Keep: I see nothing wrong with it. Theres nothing inflammatory about it, well in my opinion anyways. It's just a stand, like you either beleive in God or you're an antheist, you either like bacon or you don't, you either like facism or you don't, you're either one or the other. -- whipsandchains 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Delete Since the nominator is afraid to mention why this technially violates WP policy, I will make his case for him. It's divisive, inflammatory and INAPPROPRIATE for Misplaced Pages. Should we have a template kicking a hammer and sickle now to "balance" this one? NO! But that's where this could lead - though I note a pro-fascism box was quickly "taken care of" when someone created one as a way to make a point. The political merits of this or any other template aside, and forgetting the 'fairness' argument, Misplaced Pages is simply not a soapbox, and support for or against Fascism has nothing to do with this "anti" template existing here. It's appalling to think templates are being "saved" because they are "correct" in their political viewpoints, but that's what I've been reading about why this box is so precious. Everyone should please review WP policy before jumping on the "save the 'correct' template" bandwagon. Nhprman 00:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- And I should note that while I abhor fascism and fascists, I never once voted up an attempt to delete their userboxes. Why? Because there's bigger things to worry about on Misplaced Pages than fascists ability to put up a Kick Me sign on their own backs -- like the fact that racists routinely vandalize pages and get away with it, and that the hostile environment this fosters has never been properly dealt with.

Comment Not afraid, merely disinterested - I was clearing out the speedy delete category, this template had been there for hours and had no reasons given under the existing criteria for a speedy delete. I remain disinterested in the reasons for deletion or keeping this template, but I'd rather not be misrepresented by either side. Thanks. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 11:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete, I think people could take a lot of offence at this DannyM 09:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Offensive, to whom? Advocates of pogroms and genocide? People who dispatch thugs to go after "sick art?" They're already offended by the fact that Misplaced Pages allows for editing by Jews, people of color, trade unionists, et al. Why the hell should a project built around freedom of honest inquiry be worried about the opinions of those who oppose freedom, honesty, and inquiry? --Daniel 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The same argument can be made against thuggish Communism, which has killed or ensalved hundreds of millions, so where's your anger against that political philosophy? This is why Misplaced Pages is no place for narrow political crusades. Deleting all political Userboxes will bring that honesty and freedom you seek back to the project. It's getting lost now in these Userbox wars Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You just answered your own question. Why should a project built around freedom say it's okay to think one way and it's not okay to think another? Last I checked, isn’t that what you've been saying fascists do? Say everyone who doesn’t agree is evil? --Khat Wordsmith 19:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

- Re-read DannyM's comments, and my own. His argument is that fascists will be offended by this userbox. That would make sense, were Misplaced Pages a fascist website, censored along the lines fascists dictate. It isn't -- and if Misplaced Pages were ever censored along fascist lines, then say goodbye to at least half of the over one million articles on English Misplaced Pages.

Whether any one political philosophy is "wrong" or "right" is beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages and this is not the place for Wikipedians to "battle it out." The entire discussion is moot, and there is no "right" to express one's belief in, or opposition to, a certain political philosophy. WP policy states: "Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech." It's not a question of defending or attacking Fascism, it's a question of whether the template should be gathering supporters and opponents in the way these always do (and we're seeing it here in this argument.) It - and all other political Userboxes - are taking users away from the core purpose of the site. Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Feel free to beat a strawman until your knuckles are bloody. This is not a matter of "unregulated free speech" on Misplaced Pages - this userbox appears nowhere other than user space where it does absolutely nothing to work against Misplaced Pages's mission. I've never argued for unregulated free speech on Misplaced Pages, and to the opposite I wish people like you would actually bother to regulate the type of racist garbage that gets posted daily in the articlespace. You don't - and that's why people post up userboxes like this. --Daniel 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The straw man is the attempt by some to smear all those who oppose this Userbox as a racist. Bad move, and they need to assume good faith. Your comment that this appears "nowhere other than user space" is incorrect. This is a template, and is in template space, making it subject to community discussion and consensus. However, put the raw code on your Userpage and very, very few will even care to comment, and the community aspect of the box goes away. But if it's going to be a tool to "organize" other anti-Fascists, be warned that pro-Fascists and anti-Communist boxes will be allowed, too, and selective censorship will not be tolerated because, as we hear ad nausem (only when it suits people's wishes, apparently,) "Misplaced Pages is not censored." Nhprman 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User's second vote on this nomination. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

- - That's right, we all have opinions. But thinking - no, KNOWING - that your own opinion is right and other peoples' are wrong, and that all material you think is "wrong" should be erased isn't going to work so long as someone else holds a different opinion. That's why this project is supposed to be done in NPOV, so that all the differing opinions have a chance to be recorded and documented so that all the information the differing opinions will let in are let in. People who aren't fascists (the vast majority) can put in information about the holocaust - but there are a few people out there who just, gosh-darn-it, KNOW that that information is false. Are you saying we should let them delete those pages? No, they can put in a different page that some people have a different opinion. By proudly proclaiming that people KNOW that you are right, what message are you really sending? Everyone's point of view is the same as yours? If that was true, no one would have created this button which attacks the POV of another group. Of course, I could have completely misread what you had to say, please inform me if I am mistaken. --Khat Wordsmith 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Perhaps the use of the word you in that part of first sentence was misunderstood, I was refering to myself in a third person view (poor choice of word I admit). And gosh-darn-it, you just made my point. Why delete something you don't agree on? Like you pointed out, instead of deleting the holocaust article, they made another one right? Then why delete this template? You can make a pro-facist template and put it on your userpage for all I care, I can't force you to see things my way, thatd be rather hypocritical now woudn't it? This template here just represents the fact that I am antifa. It's not like I go around and vandalize articles or userpages with this template, its just used on my userpage (where I'm suppose to put my POVs correct?) to indicate that I am anti-facist. -- whipsandchains 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      - You are very, very, very right. One can make a pro-fascist user-box and put it on his or her user page. You are 100% right. Just as someone can make an anti-fa userbox and put it on his or her own userpage. But the fact is that, for some reason I don't quite understand, I'll admit, when someone makes a template of something like that, it gets deleted. I've watched all the pro-fascist user boxe templates get deleted while the anti-fascist userboxe templates stay were they are. I'm just saying either keep both (which is very unlikely to happen) or remove the templates of both and allow people to use their own on their own user page or someone other than Misplaced Pages. Personally I'm over the opinion where the pro- and anti- anything userboxes should be able to remain as templates, but there are people, as you rightly said, who are malicious about these sorts of things and will go to great lengths to change said templates. Unlike vandalism on articles, towards which Misplaced Pages should be putting it's efforts into in order to stop, I think it's a better solution to nip this problem in the bud and, again, as you rightly said, have people who feel strongly about certain things to make their own userboxes for their own user pages.--Khat Wordsmith 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason these Userboxes are being deleted as Templates is because, as Templates, they are being used to round up people of like interests who then act in concert with others, and that makes this into a social networking site, which, according to Jimbo and others, Misplaced Pages is NOT. Again, policy states: Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. By creating political templates, and gathering "supporters" to "save" Templates that are popular from being threatened, and "rallying" forces to delete unpopular or opposing ones, this has become the focus of the project for many Users. And that's not the reason why we are here, theoretically. Nhprman 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete frankly this is a t1 speedy. But since people keep saying these things are better debated here, let's see if tfd can do it's work. If not, we can speedy it later. --Doc 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, offensive template, this can be speedied. --15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, if this template is offensive, inflamatory and divisive then surely that opens the path to deletion of most userboxes, personally i'm offended by organised religion, so y'know. Feel free to ignore the userbox, just like you'd ignore someone who favoured antifa's approach (Johnny Copper 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
If it simply stated the user supports something, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but right now it goes on to make a controversial political statement in connection with it, so I'd say Delete unless it is changed. Just another star in the night 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages.--Ssbohio 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- You see, that's the problem. It is quite possible for a user to edit in a NPOV way on articles that he/she has an apparent POV on. I don't really have a problem with these kind of templates in general, but often they are used to factionalize like this and add to the myth that everyone comes here to edit in their POV rather then improve articles. Just another star in the night 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  - But, the same fact set can be used to justify the opposite view. If we go about restricting people's expression of their POV, the issues they care about, then we perpetuate the myth that those who come here are disinterested NPOV angels. Since it is, indeed, possible, even almost certain, that a person with a POV can do NPOV work, it follows that a person with an admitted POV has an additional reason to make sure his work is above reproach. In all the thinking I've done on this issue, I don't see a disclosed POV as the negative others do, especially in comparison to the alternative, where the same people have the same points of view, but keep them hidden. It's axiomatic that withholding information leads to less accurate judgment. More information means better decisions.--Ssbohio 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If people have a POV, and it appears in their editing, it will be obvious whether or not they have a User box on their User page, and POV editing will be reverted. Users without boxes are judged on their editing abilities alone, as it should be. "More information" on a User's POV has created the appearance of POV even where it doesn't exist, and has lead to escalating User box Templates that have been more and more insulting and inflammatory, causing these debates. So in practice, the "knowing more helps us" theory has been shown to be flawed. Furthermore, the real myth here is that Misplaced Pages is a place of unrestricted free speech. It's not, especially on User pages, which are not designed to be personal Webspace. (see WP:NOT) Nhprman 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And the corollary is that the absence of a userbox somehow eliminates the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican, a Democrat a Democrat, and an "antifa" an "antifa," regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that the lack of a template doesn't eliminate the user's belief. That's an easy one to agree with. Also, I agree that trying to police user pages is not something we should be doing, other than in the case of the odd person who notes the he is a pedophile or admits to loving the idea of mass murder. That's not to say the WP community has no right to set policy for userboxes, or even user pages. The key point I'm making is that as long as these boxes are Templates, and are being used to link like-minded people together to create "tribes" that contend with one another in a POV fashion over these boxes, then they are a problem, because Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a social networking site. If the raw code of all boxes were to be placed on userpages, 90% of that particular problem vanishes, because they are no longer Templates in the template space, but simply code or text on a user's page. There is another level of the issue that says that it's not a good idea to make POV political/social statements on the user page, in any format, because they imply that these biases will likely be transfered to the articles the user edits. But that's not to say I believe we should ban people from saying "I'm a Catholic" or "I oppose Fascism" on their pages. I just think it's a bad idea, generally, and I'd urge people to consider not doing it (as Jimbo himself has done on occasion.) Nhprman 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unencyclopedic template. Also meets T1. --Cyde Weys 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant Delete. Disagree with Cyde's reasoning, but it does meet T1, which seems to be policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A definitive decision needs to be made whether or not all userboxes expressing POVs need to be moved to userspace. Dragging them individually through a deletion process is a waste of time, as they can potentially multiply more quickly than they can be produced. Until then, they must all be allowed, at least where not personal attacks. I find a lot of things offensive. I find the babel template that proclaims that everyone should speak American English offensive. This kind of petty squabbling is poisoning and dividing Misplaced Pages. Mgekelly - Talk 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is somewhat labour intensive to delete one at a time and that some standardisation of policies must take place. Whilst the issue is beng decided, our best judgement must prevail, taking each case as it comes. Cheers. Nhprman 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (an American who doesn't mind the Queen's English)
Your reasoning rings true, but unfortunately that's not policy. And practically speaking, if the template isn't deleted here, it'll be speedied. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reluctant Delete per Arthur Rubin and per (am I actually saying this?) Doc. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep there is a big difference between pro and anti fascist. it's not inflammatory.
Keep It is not offensive--Hattusili 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Well....it appears from the word choice and the actual article behind it that its sort of supporting violence, and you know, that's just not right. Homestarmy 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. We all know that this isn't what Misplaced Pages is for. This kind of campaigning makes a joke out of the idea of getting together to create a neutral encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Keep. Debating this one template is not the way to get it deleted. Please discuss this at Template talk:Start LUL box.--Sean Black 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Waterloo & City Line link

Delete See reasons above DannyM 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom. --Dominic 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep - this is part of the navigation box template which takes the text "Waterloo & City Line" as a parameter and from that looks up Template:Waterloo & City Line colour and Template:Waterloo & City Line link automatically. If we delete these we would need to have an extra parameter on the template. Not to mention the obvious disambig advantages should a line article be moved. ed g2s • talk 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep; either we change all of them, or none - don't try to change established ways of doing things by an artificially time- and scope-limited deletion debate, please. James F. (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per ed g2s's argument. It would be precipitous to delete one template when it would break the current operation of others.--Ssbohio 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment, admittedly deleting just one template of a group is stupid, but I was using this one to see how people felt and then we could think about deleting the other templates of a similar nature (as written in opening para), for example for the railway line boxes (i.e. those that operate normal rail services), link to the railway line through an IW link, and that seems to work well enough (on a bigger system) so why use two systems when one works perfectly? DannyM 08:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all - completely pointless to have this link as a template. Mgekelly - Talk 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Entirely pointless: what's the point of having a template that's the exact same length as the original link? If it was unbearbly long, or was a piped link that woudl take a lot more time to type out, I could see its purpose, but otherwise it's rather pointless. Hbdragon88 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read my explanation. The only parameter that is passed to the navbox is "Waterloo & City Line". This is then used to lookup both the link and colour. Compare:
line = Waterloo & City Line

with
line_link = ]

line_colour = {{Waterloo & City Line colour}}

do you think we should edit hundreds of pages, just to make the templates more complicated to use? ed g2s • talk 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Either way, deleting this template is not an option, this should be discussed on Template:Start LUL box, or somewhere more suitable. If there is a consensus to change the system (which is unlikely), then you can nominate the templates for deletion. As it stands, they have a well defined and essential use. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Republican

Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Republican) and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming tribes of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. I'm also inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting.

This is not a Userbox. It does not and is not intended to live in userspace. It applies to candidates for (US) office, presumably on a page about the election or the office, rather than about the candidate. (It's unnecessary as applied to a candidate or officeholder.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I've allowed my comments to get off track. This, however, is an unecessary template. Simply writing the word "Republican" does the job just fine. Nhprman 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Democratic

Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Democrat") and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming "tribes" of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. But the fact they are stored in Template space, and are therefore put into "categories" that are abused by some who want to "meet other people who believe X" then it's a warping of Misplaced Pages's mission, and it's vital that this aspect of the problem be dealt with. As for your other point, I am inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting. Nhprman 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Well, if its really fair use, its kind of illegal for them to be here in a way I guess :/. Homestarmy 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy delete criteria G7: author's request Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:MAGovernors2

Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom --Dominic 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles

delete, Silly, meaningless grouping. Night Gyr 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, stumbledon this recently and was immediately reminded of the whole Misplaced Pages:Branchlist fiasco. Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

delete per above --larsinio (poke) 20:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Contra

Comment. Not taking a position here, but I'm alarmed in reading the log of the earlier TfD that the prevailing consensus was that it imposed too much server load to repeat the same image many times on a page. That's just not true. Any image will only be loaded by the browser once per page, no matter how many times it is used. For example, the bullets on this page are an image, and it doesn't cause the servers any problem. --TreyHarris 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Just to be picky, the bullet points are HTML, not images. Remy B 16:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Actually, the bullets used are from here. If you see the CSS stylesheet, it uses this:

ul {
   ...
   list-style-image: url('bullet.gif');margin-left:1.5em; margin-right:0; margin-top:.3em; margin-bottom:0
   }

Delete adds extra linking processing that is not necessary --larsinio (poke) 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete First of all, if Template:Oppose and Template:Support were deleted, this should be deleted to. This makes no sense, "Contra". "Oppose" is more reasonable. 67.81.33.18 19:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

April 28, 2006

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Circeus 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Unamerican and others

Didn't these userboxes get deleted a long time ago? I thought I remembered them from somewhere.... Homestarmy 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete and delete any future un- and anti- boxes degrading ANY nation or its flag. These are divisive and inflammatory to the extreme, and is meant to be. WP is not a soapbox. Keep political bias out of this project, please. Nhprman 16:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Bullshit, there is absolutely nothing offensive about them. --Dragon695 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ancient Greece topics

Keep, is used in this case for navigational purposes as stated by PopartKing above. This template can be improved. --Andy123(talk) 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

keep, lest you want to delete Template:Puerto Rican topics and Template:Canada topics, to name a few? Circeus 03:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you; I had not encountered those templates, which are as bad as this one, and unattractive to boot. Septentrionalis 19:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Interesting, AFAIK, there are ones for every country. Circeus 23:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
keep, per PoptartKing--Aldux 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Telex 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Kamikazi2 12:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per reasons stated above. --Dominic 17:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, gives a good overview of topics in this field. Structure is good. --Cyde Weys 02:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is a useful template for navigation purposes. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep,, is a useful template becuase it makes it easy to add city-states to Ancient Greece. User:miquonranger03
Keep Relevant list. Valentinian 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per reasons stated above. SCHZMO ✍ 13:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Epochs

Delete Of the few pages which include the only on topic inclusion is Root Race, there seems to be an edit war with the image in the template with some claiming fair use. It could be subst: into Root Race and removed from other pages. --Salix alba (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Star-planetbox primary

Delete Per nom. I Lov E Plankton 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - agree with Chaos Syndrome that table markup is simpler for this. Worldtraveller 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: I made this template so all stars with extrasolar planets won't be different. With over 175 star's with planets, always using an open infobox could be not the same as the others. But if you don't like something, fix it! — Hurricane Dev o n @ 19:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Eluchil404 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - this kind of table is probably unnecessary for single-planet systems; it is more useful as a quick overview of the planets in multiple systems where the planets have separate articles. Also the table caption is probably unnecessary too, given its placement in the "planetary system" section of articles, it is fairly obvious what the table is describing. Chaos syndrome 18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup—The standardization that this brings is a good thing. Ardric47 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - problem is here the standardisation comes at the cost of bloated and confusing markup. I've been thinking it may be better to just have a template to insert the table header row and then use table markup to add the rest of the rows, which I think is a better solution than a complex template sequence or creating n templates for systems with up to n planets. Chaos syndrome 09:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the creator of this template has now added {{Planetbox-1p}}, {{Planetbox-2p}}, {{Planetbox-3p}}, {{Planetbox-4p}}, which makes this template sequence redundant anyway. Chaos syndrome 21:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was all deleted, no userpages broken. --Cyde Weys 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Babel-48

Template:Babel-21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-26 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-28 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-32 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-33 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-35 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-37 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-38 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-40 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-41 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-42 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-43 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-44 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-45 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-46 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-47 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Babel-48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete I just replaced my babel-21 with a babel-X and it works fine. —Ruud 12:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete No reason to have them all. I Lov E Plankton 16:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --AlF 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete I just replaced my babel-21 with a babel-X and it works fine. --Vlad|-> 23:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Andy123(talk) 00:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to {{Babel-X}}, for ease. --Rory096 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you Babels-21 through -47, but must you take 48? Delete, of course, per nom. Joe 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment—Should the users who actually employ these templates should be notified first before their pages will no longer display correctly? Ardric47 01:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Cydebot (talk · contribs) will subst them all in before deletion. --Cyde Weys 02:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, I always found these templates pretty ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 02:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete --Cyde Weys 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Olde

Delete per nom. I Lov E Plankton 16:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, creator didn't even get Aulde Anglisch correct. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 04:10 UTC

April 27, 2006

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japan infobox

Delete, If every article had it's own infobox... Misplaced Pages would need a huge cleanup. But they don't, and this template shouldnt be anymore special than all the other ones. --Dominic 04:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per Dominic. I Lov E Plankton 00:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete it is also not used on the main Japan page.--Andrew c 02:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirected to {{cleanup}}. Angr (t • c) 11:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Clean up

Template:Clean up (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to {{Cleanup-date}} 165.189.91.148 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete and to {{Cleanup}} - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and tag as deprecated (with {{Tdeprecated}}?); the likelihood of this being re-created by a well-meaning citizen is relatively high I think. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Replace all the articles that have this template with {{Cleanup-date}}. --Dominic 04:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and replace Per dominic. I Lov E Plankton 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Too much process. I'm just going to be bold and redirect to {{Cleanup}}. Mango juice 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I had to remove the TFD notice to do it. If anyone objects, they can put it back but I really don't see the point in the debate. Mango juice 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep of course. This is what is most commonly put on the article itself by an editor, then Pearle changes it to cleanup-date for sorting. --Rory096 04:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just realized that it wasn't always a redirect to cleanup; I thought {{cleanup}} was on TfD! --Rory096 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was merge and delete. Angr (t • c) 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NY-bt

Delete per nom --larsinio (poke) 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Delete. {{NYC Bridge}} is prettier, and has a less-confusing name, but including the operators is important. Migrate them from {{NY-bt}} to a third row in {{NYC Bridge}}, then delete the redundant template. --CComMack 23:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge to and Delete as stated above. Best solution. --Dominic 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge. The operators are important.--Jusjih 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge and delete Per CCoMack. I Lov E Plankton 00:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:OSPALeague

Delete per Mailer Diablo --Andy123(talk) 10:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. I Lov E Plankton 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japan map

Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 10:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dominic 04:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock

He was proven a sockpuppet; the Checkuser came back confirmed that he is a sockpuppet. But, go ahead and delete this template if you want, because ~~it can be replaced just as well by the "confirmed by evidence" template~~ there is no template to replace it but I don't really care anyway. –Tifego_{04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

- Oh I see. BTW, I subst'ed the tag you placed, so I could easily edit to remove the tfd notice and non-existent category from it. It won't be deleted on the sock's page. -- ADNghiem501 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I Lov E Plankton 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Angr (t • c) 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:United States infobox

Delete template orphaned and will probably not be used in many articles. --Andy123(talk) 10:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, It is most likly not being used anymore and, again, each article doesn't need to make a whole new template for just that article. --Dominic 04:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete The template is just a copy of what is on United States of America, which already uses an infobox. And how many articles can be about just the United States of America? --Primat e 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

April 26, 2006

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:India infobox

Delete in addition to the nom, this is an orphaned template that is not used on the main India article.--Andrew c 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. -- MJCdetroit 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. --Dominic 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Italy infobox

Delete per nom. This template is also an orphan not used by the main Italy article.--Andrew c 01:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. -- MJCdetroit 13:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. --Dominic 04:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia infobox

Conditional delete. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia still uses this template. If someone changes the infobox to Template:Infobox Country and removes this infobox from the page, then I would accept a delete. If not, then we need to keep this template so the article doesn't break.--Andrew c 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Substitute and delete --Andy123(talk) 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep if reformated and placed inside article. That infobox needs some work. I don't think the Template:Infobox Country will work because the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no longer exists. Therefore, there is no current data.—MJCdetroit 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I converted it to use {{Infobox Country}}. The content should be kept, whether in the template or not. --Joy 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, because Joy converted it. thanks. --Dominic 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP! as per MJCdetroit. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep --serbiana - talk 18:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:CPS series

Delete. PatrickFisher 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete maybe one day wikipedia will have articles covering all those toys, but until that day, this template is completely useless. --Andrew c 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Andy123(talk) 10:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Citepaper

Delete and good job that editor… —Phil | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ligulem 09:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the apparently only current use of Citepaper in an article (Rick_Ross) to use {{cite paper}}. That article also uses another deprecated template {{citenewsauthor}}. MeekMark 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Deprecate and delete, per Jude. Tito xd 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --James 05:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep and tag {{Citepaper}} with {{Tdeprecated}}; it is not unlikely that this might be recreated by a well-meaning editor.

Delete the remaining three. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Suicidehelp

Abstain. I agree that allowing this template could lead to a slippery POV slope, among other problems. I mostly created it as a resource for those who were concerned about the possibility of suicide threats being real rather than vandalism. Going to pass on voting. No hard feelings if its deleted. Tijuana Brass 06:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. But for a different reason. I think it goes beyond the scope of what wikipedia is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for suicide prevention, and I think the concept is great....but not as a template. It's my opinion that if you come across a user who appear suicidal, then an actual, personal conversation with the user through talk pages is much more appropriate than a template. Secondarily, what makes that help site any better than any other help site? It could set precedent for other such templates that, in effect, could give the appearance of wikipedia "approval" of certain external cites. I really want to vote keep, but I wouldn't feel right doing so. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 07:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete; per Joe's "irredeemably POV" and Swatjester's first point. I genuinely appreciate the intentions behind the template's creation, and I guess my comments re suicide in the admin space have led in some degree to its creation, but I couldn't imagine placing it on a user's page. Discussion is a better alternative. Thanks to the creator for the proactive response to negative comments must be expressed, though. Colon el Tom 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete in accordance with well reasoned arguments presented above, especially the one about using person to person communication, not a template, as a way to reach out. Full marks to all involved for having wanted to try this approach out, though. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Swatjester. This is an extremely delicate issue, an ugly one size fits all is not a sensitive way of dealing with it. the wub "?!" 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per above --larsinio (poke) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The unacceptable POV is simply the advocacy of a particular resource. But lo! WP already has an NPOV 'suicide help' resource: the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide. While I do agree that personal conversation is preferable, it can't hurt to have some (NPOV) tool like this at our disposal. Let's reach out in a WP way. - PatrickFisher 03:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete I don't think someone having suicidal thoughts is going to be swayed by someone posting a template for them and this template only encourages people to post it instead of talking to them. Kotepho 04:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete What's next, marriage proposal via template? Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Andy123(talk) 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as variously described above. Garrett 12:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

April 25, 2006

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Dual image

Used on two pages - very specific, no need to be a template. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
delete per above --larsinio (poke) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 12:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:UC taxobox

Delete as Nom. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- My thanks to whomever fixed the nomination. I don't do much TFD/AFD work. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listed (university undergraduate was listed twice) --William Allen Simpson 22:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Colon el Tom 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Ahasuerus 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Andy123(talk) 10:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User N-K

Very Strong Delete as Nom. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but I should stress it is currentely used by nobody as all of the Armenian users who put that userbox use code. So real reason is we have wasted template that is not linked to anything. That I think should not even be considered vote and be listed as a speedy deletion candidate, but if you insist so shall I. --Kuban Cossack 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have dignity, unlike some of the comments you have put on the talk page of the template below. --Kuban Cossack

21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

like which ones mr Kazak? Noxchi Borz 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you insist:

When I told about previous votes I got:Which vote? vote among the Russian nationalists?
Then comes even more cunning comment:No Russian admins or people of Russian background voting will count as valid.
Russian POV will not be tolorated! But it seems yours shall be.
Need I go continue? --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

delete -- recent creation, probably speedy delete T1 --William Allen Simpson 21:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Except you are not the nom, unless there is sockpuppetry going on. And why in that case do you show a double standard for Chehcnya.--Kuban Cossack 21:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"as per" means "for the same reasons as" in this context. ed g2s • talk 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sorry to have to vote this way, since I think it's unduly stifling free speech, but this does violate T1. TheJabberwʘck 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I don’t think Misplaced Pages should endorse a support of separatist movements. Grandmaster 10:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No divisive and hate templates. --Tabib 11:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (My reasons for supporting this deletion nomination are adequately expressed by the nominator.) Colon el Tom 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is inflammatory stuff... abdulnr 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is a encycolpedia and should not endorse separatist movements. Baku87 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87
Delete. I totally agree with the nominator. -- Grafikm_fr 09:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete No separatist, division and hate templates Karabakh 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Karabakh
Keep You get rid of it, you keep it, either way it will come up in one form or another. I don't have much time right now, but soon I will be back, and a lot of this crap that I'm seeing will have to fight for its life.--Moosh88 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- And you will only succeed in getting yourself blocked. Save yourself the trouble. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 03:28 UTC
Speedy Keep. Nope, nothing wrong with this. Find something more productive to do. --Dragon695 21:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I am disturbed to see that most of the delete votes are coming from Russians and Azeris. Please do not turn TfD into an ethnic feud. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 03:28 UTC
Keep What's amusing is that most of the people who voted for "Delete" would go nuts if the "Turkish Cypriot independence/recognition" userbox was nominated for deletion. Ah well. Hakob 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't have much of an opinion on this specific userbox, so I won't vote, but I think the whole removal of userboxes is stupid. It just makes it more cumbersome for people, as they will have to manually show their opinion instead. --DarkPhoenix 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - If this is deleted then perhaps the Template:User independent Kurdistan should also be deleted?! -- - K a s h 13:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Put it forward then, I believe that all separatist hate provoking templates should go.--Kuban Cossack 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete along with all separatist Userboxes, whether their cause is right or wrong (which, of course, is not relevent to creating an encyclopedia.) Misplaced Pages is not the place for political, ethnic or national feuds. The fact that anti-separatists may be 'voting' against this template is irrelevant, but it does illustrate that this template does encourages social networking, which is not the role of Misplaced Pages, according to its policies. Nhprman 17:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. See my comments on User Independent Chechnya. (the following quoted from what i said on user independent chechnya debate below, then reworded to N-K) This isn't for articles. mabye you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent Nagorno-Karabakh" userbox if you feel so inclined.--preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 06:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

These templates are being stored in the Template space, making them a community issue. If they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we will know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. But if you want to give people an excuse to not trust you, or to second-guess your edits, by all means, tell people to question your judgement. I would simply suggest that it's not a good idea - Nhprman 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, "divisive & inflammatory". MaxSem 15:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Chechnya

Delete as Nom. --Kuban Cossack 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Which "Russians" deleted the page in the past? User:Kelly Martin? Please have decency not to mislead others, if you are unable to prove your allegations. --Ghirla 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Karabakh is irrelevant, but if it comes up I will support its deletion. Make a personalised user box if you have to. As for all Russians being nationalists, watch WP:NPA. --Kuban Cossack

19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you are correct about double standard for NPOV in Wiki. Whast your stand on Abkhazia, S Ossetia Kosovo? Ill tell you after why i ask you this. Noxchi Borz 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Noxchi Borz 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Delete --Eupator 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, Karabakh is next Noxchi Borz 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Chechen, i'm using code on my page and not a template :) --Eupator 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the best Armenian, well thats what you think. Noxchi Borz 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment On the one hand, the primary purpose of userboxes is to "alert other Wikipedians to ways you might aid them in editing" as per WP:Userboxes. Userboxes that state that "this user supports XYZ" do not help with editing, but rather serve as soapboxes, something that WP policies explicitly forbid. To quote Jimbo Wales, "userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian". On the other hand, there is a ton of "regional politics" userboxes at and almost all of them go against these guidelines. If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future. Ahasuerus 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Fully support your proposal, and this template is good place to start it off with. --Kuban Cossack 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. And not because I am Russian. I'd vote the same way if I saw "This user supports independent Texas". KNewman 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just show me where to vote. KNewman 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, when Chinese or Spanish colleagues will put up the notices here, I will support them. As per Ahasuerus's comment above. --Kuban Cossack

20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

p.s Chechnya is not Texas Numan. US did not wage genocide of local population and bombed Huston to the ground (looking like berlin of 1945). Noxchi Borz 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The only Genocide in Southern Russian state of Chechnya was committed against the local Russian and Cossack population by savage Chechen beasts.--Eupator 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that IS a POV. --Kuban Cossack

20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I condone the slaughter of Azeri civillians by Azeri soldiers. --Eupator 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah nice joke. But i dont think its funny. Armenian. Noxchi Borz 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Not because I support Chechnya's independence, but for the sake of compromise. A simple concept of freedom of expresion of thought, no? Kober 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

belive it or not i agree with you Kazak :) Hey can i vote twice ? :) Joke. I will nominate karabakh next. Noxchi Borz 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP The desire for independence does not have anything with hate or xenophobia. Of course there might be xenophobic Chechens like xenophobic Russians/Poles/Americans etc., but independence is not xenophobic per se like Romanov's Flag is not xenophobic per se. It is not neutral allowing symbols of independence for some unrecognized entities and denying for others. Jasra 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Noxchi Borz 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Typical Russian nationalist POV. From what i have seen in your user box, there are tons of indications of this.

Keep as per above. --Domthedude001 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So do expain why you voted against for Nagorno-Karabakh.--Kuban Cossack

21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- has been speedy deleted several times in the past two months, good thing to have the debate recorded here. --William Allen Simpson 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete T1. ed g2s • talk 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep we have Tibet, Kurdistan, and Assyria independence templates, what's wrong with Chechnya? —Khoikhoi 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sorry to have to vote this way, since I think it's unduly stifling free speech, but this does violate T1. Noxchi Borz, I sympathize with you, but there's not much you or I can do. TheJabberwʘck 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. This divisive and useless template has generated tons of hate talk already and was deleted twice. How does it help one to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages, I'd like to know. This voting is a waste of time. With or without the vote, it will be deleted as per Jimbo's ruling on divisive hate-templates. --Ghirla 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or replace with "User supports partitioning of Russia", but seriously, I don't mind if it stays. Speaks much of users, who post such divisive stuff at their talk. The easier it would be for others to make up their minds about such fellows. See and for more. --Irpen 05:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I don’t think Misplaced Pages should endorse a support of separatist movements. Grandmaster 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I don't support dismemberment or partitioning of Russia yet I do not support occupation of Chechnya either. //Halibu tt 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case I can make templates Free Bialystok, Free eastern Pomerania whose occupation I do not support. --Kuban Cossack

12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This template neither promotes cooperative editing, nor assists the community-building. Fully agree with Ahasuerus on this. I would vote to delete any similar template.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ahasuerus and Ezhiki, if we have a policy against divisive templates, then we should follow it abakharev 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as divisive and non-productive. Ëzhiki summed it up well. Colon el Tom
Delete per nom. -- tasc _deeds 14:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete abdulnr 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is a encycolpedia and should not endorse separatist movements. Baku87 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87
Slippery slope Keep I dont have an opinon about this issue, but its a major slipperly slope between endorising whether the XBOX is better htan the gamecube, and this issue. --larsinio (poke) 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Question to those who want to delete and give the arguments about the lack of encyclopedic values or causing division? Would you like to delete all the unity/separatist movements templates or just this one or a few selected. If just this one - give the argument why this one promotes more hate than for example the one advocating for Srpska Krajina or N-K? If all the category - you should propose voting for the deletion of all the category and not just this template. Removing a selected template from the category violates the policy of NPoV. Jasra 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's why I wrote:

I wholeheartedly endorse this sensible, reasonable approach. Unfortunately, Jimbo himself refuses to take the action necessary to give some substance to his nice words and make this happen, and several thousand users endlessly debating this will never find true consensus on this issue. I don't know the solution to this problem other than action by Jimbo. Nhprman 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. --Yakudza 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per users Kuban Cossack and Ahasuerus. --Illythr 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, other secessionist movement boxes also exist. --James 05:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Very strong delete of this quite bothersome and nationalist userbox. -- Grafikm_fr 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete divisive -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete No separatist, division and hate templates Karabakh 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Karabakh
Very Strong Delete - Delete all separatist, political and divisive templates like this one. The Misplaced Pages project is not meant to be a political or social soapbox, and this is not the place to argue the pro or con of every nationalist/separatist cause. Nhprman 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete: CSD T1. If we keep it, that would mean that other userboxes such as {{User IRA}}, {{User ETA}} & {{User Al-Quaeda}} have a right to exist. MaxSem 11:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Per James. --Dragon695 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, this is not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. it's a userbox. if we want NPOV on articles, POV being stated on userpages of involved editors is a useful thing. besides, userboxes are for User Pages, not articles. if people use them, ther existence is not negative. if you don't like what a userbox says, Don't put it on your userpage. it's not right that anyone with any conterversial belief or belief that isn't accepted by everyone can't have a userbox. if we let this go, we might as well delete every userbox that shows any sign of being a unique individual? why don't we just abolish userpages all together? why don't we replace our usernames with randomly assigned numbers? Viva La Userboxen! --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

10:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are reminded not to feed the trolls.

--Kuban Cossack

22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Free speech is allowed, but think of the quality of wikipedia as a good reference source when people begin using templates such as those above. --Kuban Cossack

22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

These templates are being stored in the Template space, even if the templates are displayed on user pages. They are therefore a community issue. However, if they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. As for your call to create opposing Userboxes, you illustrate the reason why these boxes are divisive and inflammatory. Misplaced Pages is not the place for political debates and ethnic feuds. - Nhprman 17:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Any userbox can be divisive. We can either accept this fact and agree that not everyone will be happy or remove all the userboxes (at least all the political ones). Kuban Kazak said: Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. - in this case your Tsarist flag can also be divisive and you keep it. I received no answer why THIS PARTICULAR template is more devisive than any other of a political character. Quite a few people voted for deletion admitting that they are any templates showing political stands. However if just this one template is removed and the other will stay - this will cause the situation when one PoV is put above the other. I would suggest these people reconsider their vote, unless they have some arguments that this particular template is worse than any other of political orientation (so far I didn't see any arguments given). Proposal for deleting the whole "political" category is more rational, and I can see arguments both for and against, but it should be a separate voting. Jasra 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Chechnya", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Russians should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to free speech, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, Cossack, if your entire family did help fight against the nazis and chechyns, respectable as that may be, i'm not seeing how there's any way you can remain neutral about this and wanting to see it deleted for reasons other than your own opinion. you have a right to stating your opinion, and so do they. the point of userbox deletion is to get rid of unapplicable and unneecessesary ones, and ones that specifically refer to hate, not to find more people who have one opinion than the other and delete userboxes solely on the fact that it's a contreversial topic that has a clear minority that doesn't have the numbers to defend itself. you say that "wikipedia is not a soapbox" but the very reason you are trying to delete it is because of your own POV on the topic. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Weasel-inline

Delete. as nom - Irishpunktom\ 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This tag has been introduced in order to signal weasel wording without disrupting the article layout, of which imho there certainly is a need. An additional advantage is that the tag points directly to the problem phrase. --Unweasel 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- But, disrupting the article layout is exactly what it does! --Irishpunktom\ 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - As do all tags. Please compare: Template:Weasel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Weal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Now, which is the most disruptive? I think, it is the WEASEL tag. I will shorten the tag in order to address some of your concerns. --Unweasel 14:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

- - - The top one does not go after every instance of what an editor decides is a "weasel word", rather it flags that they exist and suggests that the problem be dealt with on the talk page--Irishpunktom\ 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, if something has weasel words it should just be removed. But the reasons for delete are flawed, see {{citeneeded}}, one of my favorite templates to use! -- Ned Scott 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I think this will be useful for helping improve articles by pinpointing what weasel words are. It will hopefully also lead to people noticing what they are and using them less. -- Jeff3000 14:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I disagree with the nominator about there not being a need for this one. Instead of the other template, which generally points out that an article contains weasel words, this template can be used to point out the exact location of these words. So, I'd say it's a good compliment to the weasel template. --DarkPhoenix 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep useful, beneficial, and i think more poeople need ot use this --larsinio (poke) 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - a very handy tool, as it allows you to more specifically mark which statement is being referred to as having weasel language in it, rather than disrupting the page (and putting off the reader) with the whole Weasel banner and template for a problem with only one or two statements. --Jibran1 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
keep, delete {{weasel}} -- and change to "weasel word" instead of "weasel lng." to match prior discussion about Template:Weasel words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --William Allen Simpson 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the template {{weasel}} does this template's job, and does it better. --Domthedude001 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this template is bad because it isn't very apparent that there might be a problem there - weasel is much better. Just another star in the night 00:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Redirect5p

It's useful for pointing to specific sections, such as the usage at Multitrack recording. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's the only intended usage, it should just be the same as {{Redirect}} but with an extra parameter to specify an anchor. As it is, it's too flexible. Hairy Dude 13:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, why do we want to hide the fact that the link points to an anchor at all? I can't see a good reason for wanting to. Hairy Dude 13:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- superfluous, confusing, should not hide (pipe) target link. Indeed, according to the current Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, the target link should have the "(disambiguation)" qualifier. --William Allen Simpson 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy delete under G7. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Stargate race/Instructions

The only author (other than fixing the prod template and changing it to TfD) asked for its deletion, so speedy delete. TimBentley (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Done. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics

The template was created September 2004, and this is as far as it's gotten? -- Ned Scott 08:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

9 of the top 10 medal-winning NOCs have articles (the exception, East Germany, no longer exists). Andjam 08:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep will be useful eventually. --larsinio (poke) 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. --Domthedude001 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When is eventually? Like I said, the template was created in September 2004. This is the kind of template you make AFTER you've done most of the articles, not before. And, again, I'd like to point out that it's a huge ugly blob. Even if all those articles were there, it's painful to use it for navigation. Maybe the template could be changed to have the articles that you currently have, then a link via the WikiProject to a list of articles that need creation? -- Ned Scott 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Ned Scott's arguments, not others, so far. Colon el Tom 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I suspect any of these articles would be kept by AFD, so redlinks are justified. the wub "?!" 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, too huge. MaxSem 02:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

April 24, 2006

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television

Delete, and while at it, merge all the various Maritime TV templates (Fredericton, Saint John, Moncton, Chaleur Bay, Charlottetown, Halifax and Sydney off the top of my head) into one as well. Kirjtc2 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Off-topic comment: Given that the CBC stations do have different local news, one per province should suffice. Having said that I believe the rule is "use originating market only", i.e. don't use PEI TV on CKCW-TV. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Creator has removed template from station pages on which it was used. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was subst and delete. Pagra shtak 04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:FEUbox

Subst and Delete MiraLuka 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Subst and Delete as per above. --Domthedude001 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Subst and Delete as per above. Howard the Duck | talk, 13:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:ImpersonatorProven

delete, unlike with sockpuppetry it is obvious whether a user is impesonating someone else or not. Thryduulf 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, this would be a good template... but where would it go? --Domthedude001 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Pagra shtak 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Atmospheric sciences

Keep. --Domthedude001 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I agree that Atmospheric sciences could do with a lot of work but the subfields in this template are closely related but distinct. As such it is good to have a way of linking them together.--NHSavage 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under CSD A2 (even though it's not an article, i think it applies.) Circeus 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Comuna of Chile

Delete, as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Colon el Tom 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was userfy Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Thermostat Bicker

I'm relisting this template on TfD per the deletion review decision. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. Pointless but harmless. Acceptable as "workspace decoration". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Harmless is not an inclusion criteria in Misplaced Pages. Pointless is most definitely a deletion criteria, though. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Don't try to shift the burden of proof. I don't have to give a reason to keep, you have to give a reason to delete. That's what assume good faith means. Encyclopedia standards don't apply in user space. And don't use the lame-ass excuse that it's in template space. No one reads template space as such. What's relevent is where it's expanded -- since it's always expanded in user space, user space rules apply. Lefty 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    - This thing is in Template: space, not userspace. Don't believe me? It has Template: right in front of it. --Cyde Weys 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, keep in some form anyway, even if its not in the template mainspace. I'll give some points for this going to a in-process TFD, and I'll call a userfy acceptable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Humorous boxes don't appear in the encyclopedia and improve user morale, thus improving the encyclopedia. Lefty 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Real life is raising its ugly head and I won't be responding for a few days.)
Userfy by substing - as it isn't helpful, it doesn't belong in the main template space - harmless in userspace.--Doc 10:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Substing is a piss-poor alternative. It's difficult to read, difficult to edit, and difficult to update. What you're suggesting is to throw up roadblocks to users' customization of pages, and you need to have a better reason than personal distaste. Assume good faith. Lefty 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Well said! --Dragon695 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy harmless, yet now that its being graded for actual templateness rather than being looked at through speedy delete standards, I suppose it wouldn't be very legal for it to remain a template rather than something in userspace. Homestarmy 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy - harmless, but not encyclopedic. Keep in the user namespace. -GTBacchus 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless joke. Misza13 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Harmless joke" is not an inclusion criteria on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - What Lefty said above. But soon it won't matter anyway. Misza 13 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, with userfy as a vaguely acceptable alternative. Such a colossal waste of time. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- So quit wasting our time by deleting harmless user boxes. Lefty 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, harmless joke. --Domthedude001 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Harmless joke" is not an inclusion criteria on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - What Lefty said above. But soon it won't matter anyway. Misza 13 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or userfy, but definitely does not belong in the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this trash, or userfy if you must. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Who am I to decide what's funny and what's not? If some people get their jollies out of this, I won't begrudge them that. TheJabberwʘck 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep, a bit silly but ultimately harmless. --Eastlaw 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Userfy. --GunnarRene 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
— nath a nrd o tcom 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If this is chucked out because it's pointless, surely there are plenty of other userboxes that will have to go with it? HilJackson 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Who cares? the wub "?!" 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Eastblock, Misza13, Domthedude, Sjakkalle, nathanrdotcom, Hijackson, Bagel7, myself -- and that's just the people who voted here. I'm not counting the people who've included it, or the creators of other humorous boxes, et al. I'm not going to do all your research. Lefty 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I know you meant the question rhetorically, but rhetorical questions fails if the point is wrong. P.P.S. WP:AGF
KEEP! this userbox is the best! - Bagel7 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless joke. --Dragon695 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy due to waste of server resources :) Just another star in the night 00:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirect Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Line 1 Green

Delete: redundant to {{MTL Metro Green}}. TimBentley (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually a redirect would be fine. TimBentley (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, redundant to {{MTL Metro Green}}. --Domthedude001 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect, redundant. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect --GunnarRene 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Div 60

Delete - As one of the others who edited it I endorse this deletion. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Colon el Tom 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Marseille infobox

Template:Marseille infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (what links here + google); replaced in Marseille by {{Large French Cities}}. SeventyThree 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --larsinio (poke) 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Madeira

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:RahXephon infobox

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Russia infobox

This template needs deletion because it is a single-article infobox, and is not used even in the article on Russia.--Brendenhull (talk) | 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. -- MJCdetroit 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Baleet per nom. the wub "?!" 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

April 23, 2006

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Indiancopyright

Delete as per nom and above. You don't need to be too specific with copyrights. --Domthedude001 01:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The images belonging to Press Trust of India or other Indian domains, e.g. Image:Rastrapati ke angarakshak.jpg, have reserved rights. --Victor.P.Das 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Some images have reserved rights and to refer that we need this. - Vaikunda Raja 10:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Some images have reserved rights. Those images are generally not usable on Misplaced Pages and need to be deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy. --Carnildo 06:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy redirected by User:Constantine Evans. Circeus 16:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User United Kingdom resident

Moved from AfD Morgan Wick 00:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, what's the problem? Redirect to {{User United Kingdom}}. --Domthedude001 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect --Misza 13 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect - and I just did. Is this an acceptable solution Setanta747? If so, you might consider delisting this.--Constantine Evans 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted/salted per CSD:G4. — xaosflux 12:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Uncyclopedia

Delete for the many reasons given in the July 2005 deletion (and protect the page to prevent more recreations. JoshuaZ 21:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per nom and above. --Domthedude001 01:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I Don't like Deleting Anything M:Inclusionism and I like the template but I understand why it needs to be deleted. Is it ok to have it not as a template but still on Flying Spaghetti Monster and other especially silly pages.--E-Bod 02:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: why is this even listed here? --Constantine Evans 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. What Constantine said. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom and others delete comments above. --FloNight 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Newinfobox Digimon

Delete. I did some improvements on Template:Infobox Digimon today. --Ligulem 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Technical2

Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Utverylong

Keep. --Domthedude001 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, nothing wrong with having it. I find it useful. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - useful. TheJabberwʘck 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why the two of you have called it useful, yet there are no links to it, either direct or via subst. Who exactly is this useful to? Tijuana Brass 06:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Just because it is not currently in use is not an adequate reason to delete. Nothing should be removed unless it is broken, wrong or harmful. --Blainster 07:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence the other reasons I listed above. Tijuana Brass 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

— nath a nrd o tcom 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it links to Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page which is good for newbies to learn. I put it on User talk:68.39.174.238. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If a user has been around long enough and got enough talk to need one of these, perhaps you should leave them a personal message yourself? I'm getting sick of all this template-talk, and if I got this message would consider it and its bolded "Important" rather rude. the wub "?!" 22:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per all above. It's quite appropriate and useful. Ardenn 00:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Manifold

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:HealthDisclaimer

Keep and change/delete the guidelines. See the reasons at Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer/Reasons. ackoz 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Disclaimers in specific articles increase Misplaced Pages's liability: if some articles have disclaimers, then any article that does not have a disclaimer can be assumed by the reader to not need one. And to make matters worse, articles without disclaimers are also the ones more likely to get the reader in trouble -- if someone's gone to the effort of adding a disclaimer to an article, they've probably also gone to the effort of making sure the article is reasonably accurate. --Carnildo 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand it is Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer.Geni 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete see responce to Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer#Reasons.Geni 22:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
OK As long as there is another chance to get the disclaimers from down there. ackoz 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per no disclaimer policy. --InShaneee 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per reasons at Misplaced Pages:No disclaimer templates guidelines. Primarily the reason stated here: The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Misplaced Pages to lawsuits. FloNight 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. (If a disclaimer is necessary, then Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer should be linked on all pages.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It is, in the footer. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: This is what the General Disclaimer is for. We do a pretty good job of keeping crackpots out, in my opinion, and if someone adds biased information about their profession, what keeps them from changing the disclaimer too? --Constantine Evans 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The disclaimer pages are long-term protected. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per "No disclaimer" policy someone already mentioned. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No disclaimers. Kaldari 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. the wub "?!" 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

April 22, 2006

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:SKT

Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 01:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Viva colour templates

Template:Viva Pink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Viva Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Viva Blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Viva Orange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Viva Purple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. These templates do little beyond encouraging people to make articles more complex than necessary. David Arthur 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, these templates have no little purpose and should be removed. They aren't even being used anymore, delete.--Domthedude001 20:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Planetbox classification

Strong delete. Misplaced Pages must stay clear from this kind of speculation.--Jyril 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, this template serves very little purpose and should be removed. --Domthedude001 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment — Template should first be removed from the pages where it is already in use (70 Virginis and 47 Ursae Majoris). — RJH 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No original research. the wub "?!" 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Age

Keep, this could be useful on userpages (for example, if someone wants to have their age displayed and have it kept up to date without editing it directly). Ditto for infoboxes that handle people (an age field that's always up to date). Etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. This would even be a good idea to do with the age userbox. --Domthedude001 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
Delete or userfy per nominator. There's no reason that this template should be used in the main namespace or the article talk page; information about the subject's birthdate should be in the article, not on the talk page. It can be userfied if this needs to be used on user pages. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I believe Ed was just demonstrating it on the talk page, not saying information about age/birth should be moved to the talk page exclusively. And, respectfully, I don't see why we shouldn't use this in the main article namespace (especially in, say, infobox templates about people). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (I've already userfied it). Misplaced Pages is not paper, and there's no reason to avoid dynamically-updated information, provided it's formatted properly and doesn't interfere with anything. I fully support any options which would facilitate "hiding" tables or columns which use templates like {{age}}. --Uncle Ed 02:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, move back to template-space and use it in any namespace as appropriate. Dynamic information is very important if Misplaced Pages ever wants to push past conventional encyclopedias in terms of what content it offers. Netoholic wants to make things "easy" for editors by making things hard for readers. This is not right, we should make things easy for both readers and editors by using and documenting properly these templates, Ed has been doing great work in this area. Pcb21 Pete 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - For all the reasons already stated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this template. It provides useful information, updates automatically rather than becoming 'out of date', and has no real drawbacks at all. --CBDunkerson 11:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep for all above reasons. What's interesting is that I just came up with this idea myself, opened Template:Age, got surprised that it already exists and absolutely shocked that someone wants it dead. I mean, if Tim Starling (or whoever else) created ParserFunctions, he was aware of the consequences. I'll even go bold and upgrade it so that one will be able to specify the date on which the age is measured (with default to {{CURRENT...}}). --Misza 13 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep for reasons already well stated. —Doug Bell 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep—Although my instinct is that it seems unnecessary, maybe this will help prevent errors caused by figuring age by subtraction of years. Ardric47 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- That it stays up-to-date automatically is a bigger advantage. Let's us get on with more important things Pcb21 Pete 07:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
— nath a nrd o tcom 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User SaintCliff

Keep Changed image to a public domain image of an envelope. if anyone can think of something better, feel free, but it removes the fairuse complaint. viva la userboxen! --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep "Not being useful to building an encyclopedia"???? You've got to be kidding...that describes any userbox that relates to a user's personal interests, which is many, many user boxes and one of the key reasons for user boxes; so we can tell about ourselves. Also agree with user preschooler. Rlevse 12:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per preschooler and rlevse. MiraLuka 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Cliff is teh kewl!--Jguy 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep I see no problem with it. --Misza 13 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep As per most of the above. Coffeeboy 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems harmless :/. Homestarmy 12:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. What preschooler did should have beeen done in the first place - no need for TFD. TheJabberwʘck 04:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Harmless.--Zpb52 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:User UN Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User supports UN

Delete this one, the identical one, and the "anti-UN" box. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Nhprman 14:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete this one only, as it is redundant. MiraLuka 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Template:User UN. —Andux 08:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect, duplicate of another userbox, non-standard userbox font size. Morgan Wick 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per above. --Misza 13 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per above. --Domthedude001 01:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Template:User UN as per above. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 07:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per T1. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Andux. Mgekelly - Talk 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

April 21, 2006

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Uruguay infobox

Delete - per nom. Chairman S. 23:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep the template, move it out of the template namespace, and redirect to Uruguay. — Insta ntnood 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 12:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Family

Delete as creator Kmorozov 12:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboy crashfan 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as per above. Chairman S. 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic, male-centric. Tijuana Brass 08:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above/nom. --Domthedude001 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Arrested Development

Delete, unused. Royboy crashfan 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep/Comment, it is a good template, keep it. However, it should be on every page it links to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domthedude001 (talk • contribs) .
- There are no such pages - all the links on the template now redirect to Characters from Arrested Development. — sjorford (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Tijuana Brass 08:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirects to Template:Infobox Circeus 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Conditionals

Delete - The 'conditional war' is (hopefully) over and the new '#if:' feature has been integrated into 'Template:Infobox' thus making this separate template for demonstrating conditional logic redundant. --CBDunkerson 10:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Struck vote for now following the reversion of Template:Infobox to remove the #if: conditionals. If those are excluded from 'Infobox' then 'Infobox Conditionals' is no longer redundant. There is a straw poll to help decide whether there should be two (or more) example templates or one. --CBDunkerson 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Conditionals are evil, because they present a barrier to template editors who don't have advanced programming knowledge. Simple is good. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
comment: so because some ‘template editors’ (what are those?) — who probably won't need to edit these templates — might not have programming knowledge, we shouldn't make life easier for article editors? I'm not sure I follow your logic. ericg ✈ 17:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, contrary to what Netoholic believes, conditionals simplify templates and make them more accessible to editors using them. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to template:infobox. — Insta ntnood 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per above --Domthedude001 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Dino

Delete per nom.Dinoguy2 03:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Someone new learning the ropes. No harm done. --CBDunkerson 10:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per CBDunkerson -- tylerwillis 14:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per CBDunkerson Nhprman 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not likely to be used. Royboy crashfan 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete for the record, my vote.--Firsfron 21:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, You don't need a template that says simply five words... It won't kill someone to write it... As CBDunkerson said, someone new is learning the ropes, probably testing ... --Domthedude001 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

April 20, 2006

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:In-progress tvshow

Keep it I think we should keep it. dposse 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ---Maitch 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Everything that exists in the world is "in progress". A template for future TV shows is fine, but this one seems to imply that it's okay to add speculation and original research to articles just because they are about something that currently exists. Kafziel 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete This template implies that the information might somehow be wrong, when it isn't in most cases. Everything on those pages is usually based on the current information given. That information usually isn't nullified in most cases. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there are some cases where information might become nullified, but it's still notable overall, and articles tend to be updated when it happens. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Someguy0830, I know you are an active TV topic contributor, would you possibly care to help in cleaning up the by me mentioned situation (below) ? - The DJ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep if Reworded The template is good. It tells us the show is in progress, which is good to know. However, it's saying it's okay to speculate. That part should be removed. Once that part is removed, I say Keep.
- Keep if Reworded As per above. -- tylerwillis 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated above Cyclone49 00:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's unnecessary; people should already be aware that pages for still-running TV shows are going to be updated as the series progresses, and it should be readily apparent from the infobox whether a show is still running or not. Additionally, the template interferes with page layout.Raymondluxuryacht 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Useless. Manmonk 00:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom MiraLuka 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep not that i don't agree with the points above, but I believe this template's TRUE function should be as a warning on shows/seasons such as Idols, which are basically in the same order as current sporting events. I agree that in it's current form it's not OK, but untill WP:TV makes up their mind what to do about the temporal situation of Series/seasons/episodes, I'd rather see it being kept around and misused, instead of being ripped from wikipedia and losing the potential information still contained in the collection of articles that this template creates. Note that the current wording is actually from YESTERDAY. I'm trying to work out the overlap, incorrect use etc of {{Future tvshow}} {{Future TV series}} and {{In-progress tvshow}}, after the recent TfD of {{Future tvshow}}, but if ppl start TfD'ing all of them before even the slightest discussion on their talk pages, then you are NOT being very helpful. - The DJ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Definitely appropriate, though in need of sorting out. Circeus 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have opened a discussion on the temporal templates and categories regarding television content. People are welcomed to join that and spew their ideas/agrees/disagrees - The DJ 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (if Reworded)/Comment There's a template for current events that warns a page might be changing frequently, and granted it's probably only going to be on a weekly basis, but I think having one for in-progress TV shows is good also. I agree with the above comment to get rid of the speculative part though; that should be a separate section in articles that wish to deal with that. (Comment: Perhaps it should be reworded to only be used when a show is in the middle of a season?) --SSTwinrova 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons already stated --Charlie 03:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the above stated reasons to delete and per my reasons for deleting the future tvshow template. Pegasus1138 ---- 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep (after rewording) --Thankyoubaby 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete very ugly. sinblox 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, totally unnecessary. Royboy crashfan 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, just work it out, though. Pacific Coast Highway • 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, for many of the reasons already stated. --cholmes75 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've seen a lot of votes on here that say this tag is useful because it tells us the show is in progress. The article should tell us that, not a maintenance tag. Tags are meant to be temporary; TV shows can go on and on for decades. If it's a current show, the prose itself should indicate that. In fact, simply not including a cancellation date indicates that by default. Kafziel 16:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, the template serves a function for articles on (as an example) American Idol contestants, who have achieved a degree of notability yet arguably have not yet established this notability. Just as with articles which document current events, the facts influencing the notability of the articles' subjects may change. Therefore, my vote is to Keep after rewording, or else another template should be developed for this function. -- SwissCelt 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep, So don't use it on articles where being in-progress does not effect credibility. Articles such as Digimon Savers however, does lack credibility do to it being in-progress. -- Ned Scott 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article already tells people that. It doesn't need to be stated twice. Besides, it doesn't lack credibility, it lacks information. That information it does have is credible. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Trust me, it lacks credibility. You can not trust all the information in that article, as well as many others. I understand if this is not the case for some TV shows, then ok, they don't have to use this template. But when fandom causes lots of unverifiable information to be added, and to much for anyone to catch all of it and try to source it, a warning of this nature is completely appropriate. If this template does get deleted I plan on just using the actual wikicode into the articles themselves. I understand if it's something like a typical sitcom, or it's The Price is Right, and they wouldn't need such a warning. But to make the claim that this decision is good for all TV show articles is ridiculous. If anything, we should be discussing which articles should use the warning and which ones should not. This is no different from using a warning that says an article is about an in progress event, or might be controversial. Yes, the article says it's a show in progress, but this warning is not to give information about the status of a show, it's a warning about the article itself. -- Ned Scott 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per reasons stated above. FireSpike 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons already listed. - Digresser 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per reasons above. ArgentiumOutlaw 11:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep it, per reasons above. --Domthedude001 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and users above. M2K e 22:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but reword. It needs to be clearer that the speculative part is the future episodes of the show. This template is far from alone - see Misplaced Pages:Current_and_future_event_templates. Mike Peel 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and users above --DChiuch 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, reword.-- SonicAD (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Mike Peel makes a good point, there are already templates for the kind of thing we're talking about. Personnaly, I don't think it's necessary to have a separate sports future event or election future event, but just because they exist, does not mean we should feel free to add more clutter. The true purpose of this tag is to warn people about the changing nature of future television shows. There is a tag for that, {{future}}. Comment If you do decide to keep it, please change the graphics to be standard with other future event notices. --Bantab 11:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So you would say replace all instances with the {{future}} tag, and then remove the template in question? Mike Peel 11:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bantab-From what I can tell, your saying we remove every single current template and replace it with the future template. But why would we do that? That would mean the current tv shows would say they are taking place in the future. You said this tag is to warn people about future tvshows. What do you mean by that? Because if this tag is on a page, it's a current tv show. People don't put these on tv shows that haven't happened. They put them on ones that are happeningm like they should. And also, why would we merge it with the future tvshow. That's up for deletion also. (Sorry for the long comment)TeckWiz 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- getcrunk juice 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete, per nom. This template is useless.--Fallout boy 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Hench 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary because the introduction of the article should clearly establish that the topic is a programme currently in production. --NormanEinstein 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reason stated - totally unnecessary, distracting. --Jacj 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep If we delete, sooner or later we'll cobble something together that is similar enough anyway. NP Chilla 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated. Dylan 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Mrtea (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Driller thriller 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - In the same sense that we have a template for rapidly-changing current events, this template serves to warn the reader that they are looking at a rapidly-changing subject matter. --RayaruB 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete if a TV show article is updated frequently due to changing circumstances, the current events tag seems perfectly appropriate to me. The vast majority of TV show articles don't fit that criterion, I think. Tuf-Kat 01:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but limit use and reword accordingly. I think it should only be used for reality shows and other competition where a contestant is eliminated, or something else noteworthy happens, every week. (or every other week, or episode, etc.) --zenohockey 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep its similar to the current events template and shows that the article may rapidly change, especially when a new episode airs. -Reuvenk 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AlistairMcMillan 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

An alternative to just "delete" or "keep"

I have yet to see someone bring up a single article where it was argued to use the template and to not use the template. This leads me to believe that we can satisfy both sides of this dispute.

I would like to make a new proposal for what to do:

Your alternative is to continue this endless debate with no real points being made. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Support -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Partially support -- This isn't really a pointless debate, since delete votes outnumber keep by a fair amount, but your proposal is good. Personally, I think this template really doesn't apply in the majority of circumstances. Barring special events, most show articles tend to recieve major updates once every week or so. The major information between those times will tend stay the same, even though it may be reorganized or reworded. Pure speculation, such as the template suggests might be there, generally shouldn't be. That is something that really should be removed rather than just telling people it's there. To suggest a specific set, I would say that it's appropriate only for some reality shows (Idol, Survivor, and the like). – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - It seems almost everyone agrees that the template is unacceptable the way it is. Even most of the "keep" votes are contingent on a re-write. I still think it should be deleted completely, because even reality show articles and anime should explain in prose that the show is ongoing. The way I look at it, we're supposed to be working toward making every article featured-status worthy. No article would make it through FAC with this template intact. So this proposal is pretty much a given anyway; either the template will be deleted, or it will be drastically altered and removed from most of the articles it's currently on. I'd prefer to delete it but, yes, this option is certainly plan B. Kafziel 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Support --Pacific Coast Highway • 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'm repeating myself here, but I have opened a discussion on the temporal templates and categories regarding television content. People are welcomed to join that and spew their ideas/agrees/disagrees - The DJ 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Venezuela infobox

Keep the template, move it out of the template namespace, and redirect to Venezuela. — Insta ntnood 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete - needs to be converted into standard country template first. gren グレン 06:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Keep. Mrsteviec 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:UK stations

Keep the original, delete the new versions
Keep the new ones, delete this one
Edit the old to hold a bit more information, in turn deleting new vers.
Edit the new one, to get rid of unencyclopaedic info, in turn deleting old vers.

DannyM 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC).

Keep. The original is more encyclopedic. Are toilets and telephones really needed in an encyclopedia? I've had a good look at these and they contain far too much of What Misplaced Pages is not. I recommend we redirect them to original template and look to add any additional fields to that. Mrsteviec 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep Okay is see the argument for keeping, so despite becoming a hypocrite I think keeping is a good idea if the older version gets some more detail as I believe it's got too little detail, whereas the other one has too much, sorry for contradicting myself! DannyM 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the new ones are less encyclopaedic and too cluttered. All the information is sourced from from station info page on the National Rail website to which all the articles link already. There is little point in duplicating effort. Thryduulf 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep whichever template that doesn't occupy three-quarters of the page! I agree with the previous comment - no need to duplicate the NR website leaky_caldron 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Having thought about it, there is the problem of "too much information". Is the presence of baby-changing facilities or bicycle lockers notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Probably not. Besides, all that sort of information is available from the National Rail Station Information pages, which are automatically linked via the {{stn art lnk}} and {{stn art lrnk}} templates, so we don't need to duplicate it. --RFBailey 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Is this debate still open or is it closed? The reason I ask is that someone has changed all of the new templates into redirects to the old one without removing the delete proposal. Either restore the old pages so users can actively debate them, or close the debate and remove the delete proposal. Road Wizard 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If this debate is still open, should the Template:British stations also be considered for deletion? Or does someone need to propose it for deletion separately? Road Wizard 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No. It is a near-identical duplicate. I have redirected it into the UK stations template and adjusted the few articles that linked to it. Mrsteviec 07:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

- Comment: There is a bit of confusion about which is the "new" template here. The tbree infoboxes (major/medium/minor) were created in October 2005 by User:Sloman. (I had some discussion with Sloman about them at that time). The {{UK stations}} template (which seems to be perceived as the "old" one) only appeared in March 2006, being created by User:Mrsteviec and is an adaptation of the {{London stations}} (which he also created) which has been around since September 2005. As for {{British stations}}, this appears to be an independent attempt by User:Smurrayinchester to adapt the London template, also appearing in March 2006. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, that one can be replaced with whatever we come up with here, regardless. --RFBailey 22:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

- I'm not sure who wants to keep what, but the Euston infobox has way too much info. Studd about toilets etc is easily available from the external link. It does not belong here. We can't keep it up to date - its obsessive detail. --Concrete Cowboy 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is time to close this debate as no one can be found to support deletion and the original opposer has withdrawn the proposal. Mrsteviec 06:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

- I have objectied my self, how do we close said debate? DannyM 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep They are all nearly identical. Lcarsdata 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment, just to clarify,I used old (though incorrect), as its the one I used first, and I should know it as the newer one as I with help of Mrsteviec created it, sorry for confusion DannyM 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Phh:Reader/

Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - other help pages don't work as expected if it's integrated into Template:Phh:Reader(edit talk links history) as explained on the talk page. -- Omniplex 09:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- As explained at the talk page, they look identical to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- We looked at the right pages at the wrong times, at the moment it's okay again. For the source of this episode in the #if:-crusade see also WP:MV. -- Omniplex 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  - You know, labeling things a "crusade" is hardly a way to foster discussion. Generally I'd rather use a conditional than fork a template (resulting in two things to watch, two things to synchronize, two things to ... ?, etc). Also, another thing I have an issue with is your choice of naming in these templates; the "/" (forward slash) is very subtle, and given that it's usually pushed up against a "|" (pipe), easy to miss. I've tried to avoid being cruel/mean/evil during this as well, but when you revert war over it it's hard not to introduce the "nuclear option" of TFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I perceive it as your "crusade", I could even live with the WP:HIDE solution after adding a default none instead of the obscure {{{1}}}. But you insisted on changing it to {{Qif}} for most Misplaced Pages header templates. I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal {{ifdef}}. My first attempt was wrong, three days ago Paddu published the explanation on Ifdef, I documented it (test cases + caveats), and implemented it as planned in the header templates replacing {{Qif}}.
    
    Hours later you replaced it by #if: as discussed in the ifdef-Tfd. Trying to solve an ugliness with WP:MV I finally saw that Qif / ifdef / #if: are all unnecessary, and what's really needed is a single point of maintenance {{Shortcut/}} (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for {{Phh:Reader/}}. It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
    
    But now you insisted on if: and sent those two to Tfd. The output of your solution wasn't what we saw until yesterday, the old style is better. For the case "no optional shortcut" in {{Phh:Reader}} you could fix it (unfortunately not for "given shortcut(s)"), but your all in one solution uses {{Qif}} again, essentially two templates squeezed into one. Side by side diff of your {{Phh:Reader}} vs. my {{Phh:Reader/}}, this makes no sense. The big standalone {{shortcut}} and the small optional table cell {{shortcut/}} are different. Like {{Tl}} and {{Tlp}} are different, and no fork. -- Omniplex 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal {{ifdef}}
    
    Then change {{qif}}, don't fork. If I'm on any particular crusade here, it's a crusade against forks when they're unnecessary.
    ...what's really needed is a single point of maintenance {{Shortcut/}} (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for {{Phh:Reader/}}. It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
    
    And now {{Shortcut}} has been updated and works just fine without the unnecessary {{Shortcut/}}. Again, my "crusade" here is against forks. Forks are bad. Forks are evil. Do not fork.
    
    I also strongly disagree with you that the styling you used was "better". The standard {{shortcut}} looked okay inside a header box as well as by itself on a page, but now there's a padding issue (see WP:BN and, in modern browsers anyways, how the top line of the shortcut box no longer aligns with the top line of the navigation box).
    
    Again, you just don't get what a fork is, and somehow you think what you've done isn't forking. Whenever you introduce yet another place to update the styling of Misplaced Pages, that's (IMO) forking unless you have a very good reason. You don't have one that I can tell, especially when you've been shown it can be done without forking. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Shortcut/

Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete: template forks are evil and merely serve to confuse and bewilder. Users should not require Yellow Pages for templates to determine which of the 17 varieties they should use in any given context. —Phil | Talk 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - subtle differences: {{Shortcut}} is for big standalone shorcut, not integrated into tables, with a required parameter, one or more shortcuts. On the other hand {{shortcut/}} is for conditional table cells, in exactly the style used e.g. on Village pump pages, policies, guidelines, etc. It's far better for maintenance to have one solution for that instead of dozens. Besides it needs no 'if:, ifndef, qif, or display:hide construct at all. Better to have that in one template, instead of repeating conditional code and CSS in almost all Category:Misplaced Pages header templates individually. It's of course no fork. -- Omniplex 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Look. When you want to change the way things appear visually, you make the change to the template. You don't fork the template to change how it appears to your liking. More templates = more complexity (more things to watch, more things that can get vandalized, more things to change when people decide the appearance should be updated, etc). And in this case, it's totally unnecessary. Most pages already used {{shortcut}} before you came along with this and they looked fine. Please stop forking things when they don't look exactly right to you. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I want to keep it as it looked yesterday. That's AFAIK your CSS (?). It can't be mine, my browser ignores CSS. All I need is the <small> as it was the whole year until yesterday. -- Omniplex 12:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so we need to get {{shortcut}} changed, not create a fork. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed my ~~Keep~~ based on CBDunkerson's new Template:Shortcut(edit talk links history). -- Omniplex 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above arguments by Locke Cole. - The DJ 10:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete If we assume that the methodology here is superior to that used previously then the correct action would be to update 'shortcut' to follow the new methodology... not create a different version of shortcut. That is, by definition, a fork. --CBDunkerson 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The code can't be joined, it's far too different. If you think it's possible just do it or propose a solution. Requirement: The same look and feel as yesterday for affected header templates. -- Omniplex 12:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what it looked like yesterday, but I made changes to 'shortcut' which should make it work the same as 'shortcut/'. --CBDunkerson 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
See above (19:03, 20 April 2006 #Template:Phh:Reader/) for the history back to the WP:HIDE wars from my POV.

Your new code is nice, maybe eliminate align="center" typically implied by <th> and add </th>, but it should work as is. However now you have the same size also for standalone shortcuts - IMHO it's fine, but a matter of taste. -- Omniplex 19:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. —Rob (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Locke Cole. -- ADNghiem501 06:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pacific Coast Highway 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Holding cell

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell

Template:User not-Drug-free

I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

Template:User Hell

This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(