Misplaced Pages

Template:Talkfix

Whenever I refactor a discussion, I try to include a summary of it. I can't see how this template is any more practical than simply typing a suitable description and adding a link; indeed, it makes it less likely that a meaningful pointer will be left since the templates wording would have to stay generic. Not likely to be used on a wide basis, so it's a bad use for a template. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Keep -- Is a template bad because it is often used and loads the server? Is it bad because it is infrequently used, and -- since substitution is prescribed -- the work could be done just as well by retyping the text each time it is used? Or is the template merely bad because tagging it serves a certain user's purpose to stalk another?

Again, if it's no use to you, don't use it. — Xiong熊talk 16:38, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

April 14

Template:Graphicviolence

This template merits deletion on two of the grounds listed above as justifications for deletion of a template: it is not used, and it is not helpful or noteworthy. --FOo 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - graphic violence is an objective criterion, not a moral judgment; and some Wikipedians may prefer not to view such images. Thus, this template may prove useful. Firebug 16:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I must respectfully disagree with Firebug; graphic violence is not an objective criterion, and there are certainly gray areas. (Is a picture of a person firing a gun "graphic violence"? What if they're shown firing it at another person, but no blood is visible? If blood is visible? Is a martial arts demonstration graphic violence? Male circumcision? Female circumcision? Is it not graphic violence if it's in a PG rated movie? How about R? Only NC-17? I'm sure that anybody here could probably answer those questions--but I'm also sure that we'd all come up with different answers.) Imagery which might be considered violent (or otherwise distasteful; we've seen this discussion before) should be limited to articles where its presence is reasonably expected, and from there it should be up to the common sense of our readers. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 17:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. We already have disclaimers. RickK 18:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Our job is to present information, not to sugar coat it with warnings. Remember, Misplaced Pages does not censor anything due to minors using this service. Zscout370 18:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Graphic" violence as opposed to what? Aural violence? Ludicrous. Get this PMRC crap out of here. Clarknova 20:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First, this is POV since different areas have different standards. Second, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Graphic" as determined by whom? -Sean Curtin 22:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated. Postdlf 02:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Obscenity

This template merits deletion on two of the grounds listed above as justifications for deletion of a template: it is not used, and it is not helpful or noteworthy.

Moreover, it represents a derogatory POV judgment over the contents of an encyclopedia article. Therefore, adding this template to any article is necessarily an NPOV violation and an insult to those who have worked upon the article.

(Consider: Would we want a template that said "The contents of this article may be considered evil" or "The contents of this article may be considered morally corrupting"? That's exactly what obscene means.)

What's worse, in some places, "obscenity" is the name of a criminal offense, so this template may be read as a libellous accusation that others have committed that offense. Adding this template to any article is therefore likely to be a breach of civility as well.

Since this template cannot be used without breaking Misplaced Pages policy in two or three different ways, there is no need to have it. --FOo 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - "obscenity" is an insulting term, and it could also cause legal trouble. I would not oppose a template saying that an article contains sexually explicit images, if it avoided the loaded POV term "obscene". Firebug 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for the reasons elaborated by Firebug. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme delete. Highly offensive template. Highly POV. We have disclaimers. This is not Kiddiepedia. RickK 18:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't believe i have to vote on this. Get it out of here. Clarknova 20:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - POV to the max. Remove it before I start slapping it on articles for certain politicians. Grutness| 00:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. First, this is POV since different areas have different standards. Second, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- redirect to Template:Adult. Only one such required. — Xiong熊talk 17:03, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly POV and legally...unwise to say the least. Or, in the alternative, keep it and put it on the user page of whomever created it. Postdlf 02:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nonworksafe

This template merits deletion on two of the grounds listed above as justifications for deletion of a template: it is not used, and it is not helpful or noteworthy.

Moreover, it represents a culturally-biased judgment over the contents of an encyclopedia article, which is hazardous to our project of countering systemic bias. --FOo 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - criticisms of "culturally-biased judgments" don't hold much weight for me compared to the risk of people losing their jobs. Firebug 16:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  It's worth asking whether anyone ever might lose their job from reading Misplaced Pages instead of working ... and does that make all of Misplaced Pages "non-work-safe"? :) --FOo 16:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Deciding if a topic/article/image is "work safe" is highly subjective. Forget the cultural subjectivity, each workplace is quite different with respect to permissible web activity. If people are going to surf Misplaced Pages at work, they should know to limit themselves to 1)work-related topics, or 2)topics that a reasonable person would expect to be "safe" for that particular workplace. Their judgement ought to be significantly more accurate than ours. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• comment Wikiprojects don't set policy. I don't know if there is anything in to policy on templates about subjectivity.Geni 17:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extremely POV. Different work environments have different rules. If you shouldn't be reading Misplaced Pages at work, don't. If you are afraid that, horrors, you might come across an image you shouldn't, turn off images in your browser. RickK 18:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't FARK.com Clarknova 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep; fixed Delete; superseded -- Does every nomination have to descend immediately into either-or, yes-no, thumbsup-thumbsdown politics? What happened to working together to fix flawed templates?

This template has never been used. While I agree that it should, in a better world, be unnecessary, I think there are articles whose content may demand such a tag. Autofellatio does not need this; it is obvious that the content will be objectionable to some users and in some contexts. But since WPdians are constantly pushing boundaries, there are articles on seemingly "innocent" topics which contain content that large numbers of middle-of-the-roaders dislike. Some of these will be quieted if they feel they have been alerted. Template edited and renamed to increase scope and generality. — Xiong熊talk 16:57, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Xiong, while your zeal to improve Misplaced Pages is unparalleled, it's probably not a good practice to redirect, rename, and rewrite from scratch a template being discussed here. In future, I might suggest drafting a proposal in your user space. With respect to "fixing" flawed templates, I suspect the concern is not that the template in question is poorly worded but rather that its entire purpose is inappropriate. Finally, your proposed template leaves us with the same debate, except that the wording is now sufficiently general ("Please note that this encyclopedia may not be appropriate at all times, nor for all viewers") that it could be applied to every article in Misplaced Pages. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are in fundamental disagreement. We are not here to vote; we are here to improve. Of course, it's much easier to bash something than to fix it.

As for the issue of application, please see the entry for the improved version -- which a certain user immediately nominated. — Xiong熊talk 18:28, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Xiong renamed this template to Template:Adult and the change Ten refers to above. I've reverted his edit, and moved this template back to its original name, and put Xiong's change into Template:Adult. That template is now separately nominated it for TFD. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

That's a typically confrontational way to handle the matter. But I shall let it stand; and thus I change my vote on this old version. — Xiong熊talk 18:28, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Delete. Postdlf 02:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

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

We already have two templates which handle both aspects of this one. Template:NowCommons documents that the image is at Commons, and Template:ifd marks those images which are up for deletion. Compare here where I replaced use of this template with the appropriate ones. There is no special reason to combine these two ideas into a single template. -- Netoholic @ 16:01, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

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

Template:Not notable

Just like Template:Nn below, except it doesn't even save you as much typing. —Korath (Talk) 09:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The discussion below refers to the template at its original location and what is now a redirect to Firebug's user space. A delete vote on this does not mean a delete vote on its current location in Firebug's user space. --SPUI (talk) 22:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I left a note on the creators page asking them to mark this for speedy deletion. -- Netoholic @ 15:32, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Delete, we definitely don't need templates for VFD voting. JYolkowski 15:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically redundant to Template:Nn. And we don't need another template for VFD voting. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that User:SPUI also keeps on trying to change this template to read "Keep. Not notable". Then again, as User:Radiant! wrote below, "people who vote-by-rote might actually deserve to get their vote changed or nullified." Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad precedent. – flamurai (t) 16:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. I created this template because I feel that "Not Notable" is a very common reason to vote for deletion, and it is inelegant from a coding perspective to have to hardcode the same "Delete, not notable" string in every identical vote. Any good C++ programmer, faced with a similar situation in their code, would use a #define, and this is the Misplaced Pages equivalent. If the template is a target for vandalism, that is an argument for protecting the template, not removing it. Firebug 16:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my opposition to deletion for the reasons given by Radiant. Firebug 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • And if someone wants to vote "keep, not notable"? Anyway, a #define is replaced when the program is compiled, and its only affect is to the programmer, but a template uses resources whenever the page is re-"compiled". --SPUI (talk) 16:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No one should ever be making a "keep, not notable" vote, because notability is a requirement for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Firebug 16:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • See, that's the thing. The community doesn't even have consensus on whether or not such a requirement should be added, much less does it have that requirement. See Misplaced Pages:Notability for details.--iMb~Meow 16:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's now been moved into Firebug's user space, but has been protected as a redirect. I think it should be kept at something like this version. --SPUI (talk) 17:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete template for vfd voting incourage template vfd voting, which is a very very bad thing, in my books. Burgundavia 17:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Contributing to VFD is just not the same thing as writing code. Elegance is not measured the same way. SPUI makes a good point about when VFD is "compiled." Good C++ programmers know when it is more appropriate to use editor macros instead of project-wide changes to enhance their personal work processes. FreplySpang (talk) 17:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of template responses in discussions. If nothing else, it annoys me on an aesthetic level: It seems rude. Aris Katsaris 22:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Go ahead and delete both the template and the redirect. I'm willing to remove the template due to the concerns about server load raised by several users. I still think we either need a more solid VFD policy on notability issues; otherwise, the same arguments will be rehashed time and again, with or without a template. Firebug 02:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Andorra-geo-stub

At last count, there were only six Andorra geo-stubs, yet this hasn't stopped someone from creating this template and the related category. There's no Andorra WikiProject, and no chance that this category will ever be heavily populated. The person who created this has also been heavily featured on tfd in the past for his unneccessary Andorra and Switzerland articles, and the stub category was not vetted prior to creation by WP:WSS. Oh, did I mention that Category: Andorra geography stubs says it is about the geography of Switzerland, by the way? Grutness| 02:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Andorra is a sovereign nation, and there is no reason not to have a national stub template for it, even if it doesn't get used often. I see your problems in the category, it looks pretty messed up, but deletion of the template is not part of the remedy here. Sjakkalle 10:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) I see, Grutness and and Korath. I believe that I did misunderstand. OK delete then. Sjakkalle 07:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You seem to assume that stub templates and categories are for the benefit of readers - they are for the benefit of editors. Say there was an Andorra WikiProject. If there are a maximum of a dozen possible stubs, how long it would be before this template is empty and redundant? As it is, the articles are already part of Category:Europe geography stubs, of which all unsubcategorised members are from countries with too few stubs to warrant separate categories (Andorra is one of about ten countries there, with a total of about 100 stubs between them). Grutness|
• Delete. Sjakkalle, you misunderstand the purpose of specific stub templates. They aren't there to duplicate categories, or to provide pictures. They're there to reduce category size to a manageable size. A stub category with at most a half dozen stubs in it is useless. —Korath (Talk) 10:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If that is the case where this geo-stub is only serving a few pages, why not merge it into the main Andorra stub so there is just one stub category covering this nation. Zscout370 17:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What Andorra stub? There isn't one. And given that with small countries almost all of the stubs tend to be geographic ones, this isn't really a solution. What's worse, these articles would then be double stubbed as Andorra-stub and Euro-geo-stub. That double-stubbing problem already occurs with some other countries (Belarus, Kiribati, Fiji, Uganda...) Grutness| 00:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Then I will create a stub dealing with Andorra and once that is done, then all geo-stubs dealing with Andorra will be replaced by this blanket template for Andorra articles. We can see if that works, and if it does not, I can easily change the template or place it on this very page. Zscout370 00:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you intend to do so, please propose it on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria first... not that I'd expect it to pass any vote there. I doubt you could find more than a dozen Andorra-related stubs in total and there's no WikiProject on Andorra and - well, all the same arguments as above, really. Trust me, this sort of thing has been tried before with other countries with few articles - it doesn't work, and it creates more work than it reduces. Grutness| 07:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 13

Template:LibDem

Just found this in the Sandbox. Someone's trying to get votes for the Liberal Democrats in the upcoming UK elections... SteveW | Talk 17:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but make a Template:Tory and Template:Labour or similar for other parties' supporters to use. 212.100.250.219 17:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • ...not to mention Template:SNP and Template:PlaidCymru! Grutness|
• Hahaha, delete but maybe BJAODN --SPUI (talk) 17:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless POV content is removed. --brian0918™ 17:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unable to become NPOV. SPUI's edits are cute, though. —Korath (Talk) 18:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a polling/campaign station. Zscout370 18:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Adviseorder

(and the generated Category:Lists that need sequential organizing upon removal of this template)

How'd we miss this one? -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• Delete. This has slightly more merit than Template:Alpha, since it's conceivable that someone might not know what the proper sequential order is. Still, it belongs on the talk page, it's rare enough that it shouldn't need a template, and it's misnamed anyway. —Korath (Talk) 16:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the few places where the template has been placed show the absurdity of this instruction creep. Why would anyone knowingly not list album track listings in order? --iMb~Meow 23:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the template has been fixed. Its documentation now explains its new usage. See: Jock Jams volume 1, Party Zone. — Xiong熊talk 18:05, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • BTW, the category reference is gone. The useless category should be rm, but that's not within our purview on this page. — Xiong熊talk 18:08, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Delete as instruction creep. Also, "sequential order" is generic and vague. If you want to leave an instruction for a list to be reordered, you should specify what kind of order you mean. If it was obvious what order the list should be in, it would already be in that order. FreplySpang (talk) 21:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Commonwealth Games Associations at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

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

• This template could be safely moved to the creator's user space. I mean, we know that the 2006 Commonwealth Games are going to take place, and we can save the guy some work when we need the template later. Userfy. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, while I agree that the articles on VfD should be userfied, the template should be safe in the main namespace for now, since it won't be appearing on any pages. --bainer 00:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see why we can't userfy the template as well. Radiant_* 08:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason why we can't userfy it, but (more importantly) no reason why we should. -- P Ingerson 08:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keeping the templates, per P Ingerson is easier than a userfy. Of course, userfy won't be a big problem either. Sjakkalle 10:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Kpop

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

• Delete per above reasoning. —Lowellian (talk) 07:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if it gets too big, it can be restricted to "most popular" artists. Kappa 12:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, and should we have a most popular US artists template also? What's the criteria for "most popular"? —Lowellian (talk) 00:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Templates are not designed for lists that will continue to grow indefinitely into the future. Categories are. —Lowellian (talk) 00:30, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with category:K-pop artists, agree with Lowellian (wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes should, but doesn't currently, provide clear guidance about this). -- Rick Block 13:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - "Popular" is impossible to judge without criteria. Suggest this is better done as a category, and perhaps as a list of artists with sales or play metrics. -- Netoholic @ 14:31, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • There aren't enough KPop contributors to do that, and its unnecessary instruction creep. The current template has consensus. Kappa 17:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; this is better served by a category. "Popular" is asking for an edit war. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't treat users as children. If it becomes controversial, we might even be able to discuss it rationally. Kappa 17:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing is better served by a category. I mean, is there anyone who actually uses categories to navigate? Templates are much more user-friendly and should always be used instead. P Ingerson 08:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right! Let's delete all categories! They're a terrible misfeature, and the work of Wikipedians who've amassed tens of thousands of edits trying to organize them is completely useless and should be summarily thrown away! (Categorize.) —Korath (Talk) 10:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Suggesting something is better for navigation is not the same as suggestion categories are completely useless, unless their only purpose is navigation (is it?). Are we supposed to delete useful templates just to validate those tens of thousands of edits? Kappa 17:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 12

Template:Alpha

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

• Delete. Unnecessary. (Just like checking the template's history was. Sigh.) —Korath (Talk) 02:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Dleete. This vote should be spellchecked. Rhobite 06:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Abolish. This vote is out of alphabetical order, but then again, who is to say that the establishment's notion of alphabetical ordering is right or even desirable? --iMb~Meow 09:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the template and the associated Category: Lists suggested for alphabetical organizing --Carnildo 19:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- redundant with Template:Adviseorder. — Xiong熊talk 18:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Template:PD-MNGov

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

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

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

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

{{PD-CAGov}} will need to go too... Alphax  07:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think California has released all its stuff to the public domain. --SPUI (talk) 21:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Template:Nn

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

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

—Charles P.  06:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --iMb~Meow 08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It makes a mockery of VfD. --Carnildo 18:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need templates for paradoxical votes. People who make paradoxical votes hould be forced to write out all the characters, all by themselves. Not that it matters... Sjakkalle 10:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not really paradoxical - it used to read 'delete - not notable' until User:SPUI changed it. Then again people who vote-by-rote might actually deserve to get their vote changed or nullified. Radiant_* 11:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, throw out nomination entirely -- this is not within our purview. This should be dealt with by the folks at VfD, who already have a fully developed debate on this and related issues. — Xiong熊talk 18:51, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Template:Hasid-stub

• Delete: Do we really need this stub if we have the Judaism-related stub of Template:Judaism-stub already? (And remember, we also have the "Jewish history" stub of Template:JewHist-stub, the "Hebrew Bible" stub of Template:HeBible-stub, and of course the "Israel" stub of Template:Israel-stub.) There are NOT enough articles to warrent a new Jewish-articles stub at this time I would think, this will only clutter the field and further splinter the Judaism- and Jewish history- stubs sections. It thus needs to be put on hold for now. It also does not seem to be working from a technical point. See Satmar (Hasidic dynasty). IZAK 07:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary. Grue 07:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Judaism stubs are a big mess already - a look at the caveats and provisos at the top of Category:Israel-related stubs will tell you that. This one hasn't been approved by WP:WSS and just further complicates and already complicated set of stub categories. Grutness| 12:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Grutness, I take great exception to your critique. The "Judaism" stubs are not "a big mess". There are four of them for good reasons: One for the 3,300+ year-old religion of Judaism; one specifically for Hebrew Bible primary texts; one relating to the modern State of Israel; and one for the vast subject of Jewish history.IZAK 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • From a stub-sorter's viewpoint, they take more working out as to what goes where than any other group of stub categories. They don't follow the usual clear cut distinctions that other, more well thought-out stub categories do. They're messy to use from that point of view. The convolutions of these categories are the main reason there isn't a separate Israel-geo-stub (although controversy about the borders was another consideration). Anyway, there aren't four. There's {{Judaism-stub}}, {{JewHist-stub}}, {{Israel-stub}}, {{Sefer-stub}}, {{HeBible-stub}}, and {{Hasid-stub}} - that's six messily tangled categories. Grutness| 00:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Grutness: Well at least I agree with you about one thing, that they need to be controlled, that is why I have proposed this {{Hasid-stub}} and as of 18 April {{Sefer-stub}} (see ) for deletion. But the other four make sense I do believe, considering that they deal with a three-and-half-thousand-year/s-old subject! IZAK 09:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds fine to me - the proliferation and overlap of stub categories is the main problem here. There seemed to be no clear delineation between {{Hasid-stub}}, {{Sefer-stub}} and subjects which would be covered by one of the other stubs. I'd say 99% of the confusion would be reduced by removing these two stubs, (or replacing one of the existing ones with Sefer-stub - see note below). Grutness| 11:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Judaism-stub and JewHist-stub are enough. Jayjg 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hyperstubsorting. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this should go, so should Template:Sefer-stub. E=MC^2 T@lk 23:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I for one think there are a number of articles that center around that subject, and that the stub itself has been put to good useage so far. SF2K1 02:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It can be useful for people familiar with the distinctions, who will hopefully be expanding the articles anyway. Danny 15:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: Did this stub pass the stub creation process? — Xiong熊talk 18:58, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

There is no formal stub creation process. Asking at WP:WSS is highly recommended (to make discussions like this unlikely), but not obligatory. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And it wasn't even mentioned there. To answer Danny - it may be useful for the editors who know the difference, but it's not the editors who put stubs in separate categories. I doubt if more than a small handful of the stub sorters would know the differences. Grutness| 02:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep My original reasons for creating the stub was that I realized there were at least 15 Hasidic stub articles. This is not a lot and does not seem to be a good reason. Yet recently users have been writing stubs about Hasidic dynasties. There are over 200 Hasidic dynasty articles that are yet to be written. When it comes the time when there will be so many articles on one subject than the stub will be very usefull. In the mean time we should keep it though, Hasidic articles are written quickly and always start as stubs, not full fledged articles. On the sorting issue. It may be a little annoying for sorting yet I think that the stub template is needed a bit now and will come in very handy on the future. ChanochGruenman 13:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Chanoch, while your heart is in the right place, you absolutely CANNOT say that because down the line there are "200 articles that are yet to be written", that it is therefore a "justification" for creating stubs now , which makes no sense at all. If we indeed one day in the future had that many articles we can begin to think about it. I can tell you now, that I have been the one who entered most of the Judaism/Hebrew Bible/Israel articles into the two largest "Jewish" categories of Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism as well as their sub and sub-sub categories, and I can tell you that on those huge subjects there are about 3,500 articles in total including all stubs. So at this point to start splintering and dividing up a field of relatively few articles will not be of help (as you can see how poor old Grutness is so confused already), and it will surely only confuse a very confusing subject. Unless you do not agree that Hasidism is part of Judaism??? So for now, let's keep Hasidic-stub subjects as part of Judaism-stub or Jewish history-stub subjects, please. IZAK 10:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. In an attempt to mollify some of the feathers that may have been ruffled by my earlier comments, may I try to explain. The general procedure with stub category creation is to first assay the need for a category based on one of two ideas: (1) there are a large number of extant generic stubs which would qualify for a specific category, or (2) there are too many stubs for an existing category to be viable, and therefore consider reducing it by making a natural subcategory for it. In general, WP:WSS uses rule of thumb figures of between 60 and 100 existing stubs as a minimum for a new category, and - except in special circumstances - is unlikely to split a category with under about 800 stubs. At all times, attempts are made to have the nw category fit in with the existing scheme, rather than cutting across two or more extant categories. Currently neither Judaism-stub nor JewHist-stub is on more than 200 articles, and, as Chanoch said, there are currently only some 15 stubs which would benefit from the new template. I think it highly unlikely the template would have been agreed to had it been proposed at WP:WSS. Furthermore, it does create confusion, by cutting across two current stub categories (many articles on Hasidic Judaism also deal with matters linked to Jewish history or Judaism in general - lets face it, the Hasidic/Rabbinical schism - if that's the right terminology for it - was a major event in both Judaism and Jewish history). Having sefer-stub suddenly appear caused enough confusion, without this one appearing as well. As to sefer-stub, I'd be quite happy to see it replace HeBible-stub, which it largely duplicates. Grutness| 11:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Grutness: There would be a huge problem with having the "Sefer-stub" replace the "HeBible-stub" because the Hebrew word Sefer simply means "book" and so it could also be used to include non-religious and non-Biblical books and it would therefore NOT make any sense to combine the "Hebrew Bible-stub" under the "Sefer-stub", as its present creators have a very narrow Orthodox Judaism view of the word sefer. IZAK 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 9

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

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

• Delete. Starky 16:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It was, by the way, Starky who applied the speedy message, and has in the last hour been going on a "Czechia"-purging rampage, his first edits ever. —Korath (Talk) 17:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have not been going through a "Czechia-purging rampage", I was just replacing instances the old template with the newer shorter-named template, which doesn't gratuitously use the neologism "Czechia" for the Czech Republic. Starky 17:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not a neologism. Grutness| 00:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Czechia-geo-stub. "Czechia" is a dubious neologism that should be avoided. NoPuzzleStranger 19:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm adding Template:Czech-geo-stub at this point, at least until this mess is straightened out. At the very least, it's a cut and paste move. —Korath (Talk) 19:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Oops - without knowing about this debate, I've just redirected the (incorrect) Czech-geo-stub to CZechia-geo-stub. There was quite a bit of debate about the naming of this stub before its creation, and it was decided that Czechia was a far more acceptable name for it than Czech. Delete Czech-geo-stub, keep Czechia-geo-stub, as per WP:WSS. Grutness| 22:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Where was this debate? NoPuzzleStranger 00:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • IIRC, some of it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (which is where stub creation debates usually occurs) and some of it on various Usr talk pages. Grutness|
      • There's nothing about it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, and private discussions don't count. So what would be "incorrect" about Czech-geo-stub? If you want to claim some previous consensus, you will have to document it. NoPuzzleStranger 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For me (as a Czech user) is Czechia quite acceptable - also our government officially encourages people to use it. Miaow Miaow 23:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you take a look at Category:Geography stubs, you'll see that no other geo-stub category uses the adjective form of a country name, they all use the noun form. So if we are to remain consistent, we have to call this Czechia-geo-stub or Czech-Republic-geo-stub, and the former is much less cumbersome. — Ливай | ☺ 00:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Ливай. When stumbling on pages that need a stub-tag, this is much easier to do if stub-tags are predictable in form. The stub-tag itself doesn't have to be in brilliant prose or use 100% correct terminology, as we can let it display any message we like. / Tupsharru 11:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Those last two comments are obviously bogus. Either we want to be correct, then it has to be Czech-Republic-geo-stub, or we consider that too cumbersome and divert in some way from the correct form, in which case the most appropriate alternative is to use the adjective, not some controversial and obscure word that is not found in any respectable English dictionary. What kind of argument is it to say we have to use a noun because we use nouns in all other cases, but we don't have to use the standard name even though we use the standard name in all other cases? And how is "Czechia" predictable? How would anyone predict a word which is used in only 0.2% of all references to the country in Google News? "We can let it display any message we like" - well then, why not Czech-geo-stub? NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both as long as both add the same stub category and people avoid replacing one with the other, there is no harm having two of them. -- User:Docu
• Keep. And let's finally have the decency to call countries what their governments ask us to call them. As for NoPuzzleStranger's fascinating comment about a "dubious neologism", could he please explain what makes a neologism dubious? As a professional linguist I find that beyond my understanding of how languages work. When a new entity appears, such as a new country, it needs a name, and a neologism is normal and proper. "Czechia" is a neat one, and is no more lumpish than "Slovakia". --Doric Loon 12:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The only official name of the country is Czech Republic. It's dubious because it's controversial even in the Czech Republic itself, and it's virtually never used in English. We don't popularize neologisms here, we follow existing common usage. Whether's it's "neat" is therefore irrelevant. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BTW, if you are voting here, you should also make your opinion heard on the talk page of the Czech Republic article - a vote is going on there about possibly renaming that article Czechia.
  • Already did, although that proposal is almost frivolous - there's no chance Czech Republic will be moved to Czechia. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same reason as Doric Loon. Every other country in Europe has a free-standing name, why not Czechia? Besides, the official name is Česká republika, which only translates to Czech Republic (Okay this justification is entirely contrived, but I've seen worse around these debates). --Bastique 20:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't know about that - there's hardly been a rush to change the name of articles about La République Française from France to French Republic... Grutness| 09:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment As a compromise, couldn't we just use something like CS-geo-stub or CR-geo-stub, like in NI-geo-stub, BiH-geo-stub....?Lectonar 08:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Or Cz-geo-stub... yes, that would work (though there would still be a problem with category names). Grutness| 07:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Basketball Coaches

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

April 8

Template:TLA

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

TfD was added only on April 14.

• Delete - seems the explanatory text doesn't add anything, and we have other mechanisms on the pages like Category:TLAs, Category:Lists of two-letter combinations. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Keep. -- User:Docu
• Delete per Netoholic. Radiant_* 07:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete...hey wait a minute? MAA is a three letter acronym?! Who'da thunk it? -Frazzydee|✍ 00:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it merely states the obvious -- Kaszeta 17:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: the advantage over the use of the categories is that it invites to be thorough with the list of possible expansions. Personally, I don't like the current layout as I find centering more suitable for titles or short list than for texts. Alternatively, we could include some text in a page footer that includes {{disambig}}.

April 7

Template:2005Calendar through Template:2024Calendar

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

• Deprecated by generic calender templates for both months and years (dependent on the weekday of january 1st and leapness of the year). Well-intended, but unfortunately needless clutter. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - needless meta-templates. Have the alternate calendars been created yet, for comparison? -- Netoholic @ 15:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Note, Template:AprilCalendar2005 is still being in use. And they aren't necessarily meta-templates, at least for the ones I created from 2006 to 2025. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If a template includes a call to another template, it is a meta-template. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
      • The templates created from January 2006 to December 2025 aren't meta-templates. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Template:Numbers (360s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The template I meant is Template:Numbers_0-1000. I did mean to add it earlier but it slipped my mind (sorry), it's added now. My reasoning is that most numbers >200 do not have (or need) their own articles, so a template that is mostly redlinks is not very useful. Hope that helps. Radiant_* 09:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:New TFD

(and redirect at Template:TFDNotice)

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

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

March 25

Template:Manga

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

Delete

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

Keep

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

Other

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

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

March 20

Template:VfD-Königsburg

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

Summary after 2 weeks — no opposition to deletion

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

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

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

• Non-voting comment: Please don't delete this template (yet). I am declaring it as indefinitely on hold, and would appreciate it if others respected this decision until my concerns have been addressed on Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for deletion. I think that the policy of deleting when there are no votes violates Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which is an official wikipedia policy. Please don't vote on this template for the purpose of achieving consensus...that would defeat the purpose of a consensus and would be essentially gaming the system. Thanks. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Holding Cell

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

To orphan

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

Template:Sejm Marshals

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

• Template:Manga

To convert to category

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

Ready to delete

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

On hold for technical reasons

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

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

Disputed (deprecated)

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

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

Summary: 2 Delete, 1 Keep ~ Courtland 8 March

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

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

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

Listings to log

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