Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 21 January 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

Sometimes, we want to delete things in the Template namespace. This is particularly used for article series boxes that are either not noteworthy, are redundant with categories, or which have simply been orphaned. For guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable article series box, see Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes. If you vote to keep a series box, be prepared to explain how it fulfills the criteria set up at this page,

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

Note that, in addition to voting "Keep" or "Delete," a valid vote on this page is "Convert to category." In this case, all pages with the template should be added to an appropriately named category, and the template should be deleted.

To list a template on this page, add it to the list below under the appropriate date. Link to it as ] instead of as {{Insert template here}}. When listing a template on this page, add {{tfd}} to the top of the template itself. This will add the following text to the template:

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

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

Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objects to its deletion have been raised. Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible. Archived discussions are located at /Log.

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright problems -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- categories -- templates

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the bottom of the page.

December 19

Template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Women

• This template is too big and looks hideous when there are multiple boxes such as at Wilma Rudolph. Templates are not replacements for lists just because they look cool. The women here from different years have no close relation among each other to warrant this template. Link to Olympic medalists in athletics (women) (template box duplicated there) and make a category instead. --Jiang 11:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, mainly due to its size. The ones for individual champions (such as Template:Footer Olympic Champions 100 m Women) aren't as bad, but this is too unwieldy. sjorford 17:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to article. The organization is good, and each article transcluding it could be changed to merely link it, alleviating the space issue. Deco 10:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the information's already in Olympic medalists in athletics (women). Perhaps adding everybody to Category:Olympic Champions 4x100m Women would be the best solution. sjorford 10:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That page is great. Section links are the answer here. Replace transclusions with links like this: ]. Deco 10:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 28

Template:Rewrite

Duplication of {{inuse}} and {{inusefor}} function. Can use something like {{Inusefor|hour by ] to fix the foo section}} instead. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

• Keep I made this not to show that edits will be done for a few hours but to show that a major rewrite is being done that will take more than a few hours. It'd be dumb to have two people writing about the same thing without collaborating. Eric Urban 05:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Let me illustrate - here is your original usage of it, and here is how you can the existing {{inusefor}} template. It is highly desireable to keep things simple, and to re-use existing templates. -- Netoholic @ 06:36, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree completely with Netoholic and nobody is using the template (at least at the moment, I haven't watched for a longer period). --Pt 02:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

December 29

Template:survivedvfd

Another GNAA creation. -- Netoholic @ 19:39, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• You, sir, are a complete and total moron. I made this because our page has survived FOUR VfDs, and is undergoing a fifth. All of the people after the first claim to have no knowledge of the previous VfDs, so I made this template to let people know that a particular article has survived VfD. This is not trolling, this is nothing more than creating a template I thought would be useful. Dominotree 21:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • WP:NPA. ] 22:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't count Dominotree as a vote. User is a sock puppet with less than 100 edits. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
    • I've been here for over a year and made countless contributions. The only reason I ever registered an account was to vote, because previously I had no need for an account, but now it seems that having an account makes me worse off than not having one. You guys are such hypocrites. If I do 100 edits then does my vote count? Dominotree 05:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dominotree is a legitimate user regardless of some of his actions and his vote counts (though I also believe it should be deleted). Arminius 06:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I retract my Keep vote. Dominotree 06:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Neutrality 22:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. ] 22:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant with existing notices that are supposed to be placed on articles. Also makes no distinction between survival due to lack of consensus and survival due to consensus to keep. Block Dominotree for personal attacks. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Isn't calling me a sock puppet a personal attack? Vote to Block Netoholic for personal attacks. Dominotree 05:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - we don't need to know about past VfDs. Ashibaka tlk 23:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but use for talk pages. Suggest that Cyrius just block Dominotree instead of voting about it. Snowspinner 01:40, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That's very nice. I appreciate you making your bias and hipocracy blatantly obvious. Dominotree 05:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete! —OvenFresh☺ 03:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Replace with a box on VFD saying DO NOT LIST GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA HERE. --SPUI 05:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Arminius 05:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I don't like the template, but there's something to be said for having a prominent notice on article talk pages letting people know that they have survived VfD. There's no good reason for listing something twice, so it would at least let would be content-destroyers know that their peers have already tried. Dr Zen 05:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I believe it is useful knowledge to know whether or not an article has survived a VfD. In fact, I find this very similar to the constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy. Brownman40 06:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyone who lists a page before examining its talk page, which should have a clear reference to the previous VfD according to deletion policy, is just delete-happy. I would support a policy change to mandate that the talk page is examined before a page is listed, to look for any meaningful justification of suspicious content. Deco 09:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I second this. Dominotree 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that this is a genuinely useful template. It would be very useful to know what has been VFDed in the past. Using the GNAA page as an example, it's been VFDed so many times that a box saying it has survived 4 of them would be great to avoid VFDs of it and pages like it. Luigi30 17:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and use only on talk pages. Etz Haim 05:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles that survive VfD don't have immunity from being proposed again (although a suitable delay should be used) --Improv 03:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not what this template suggests though. Etz Haim 07:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but: For use only on the Talk: page, this restriction to be implemented only iff policy is changed to formally require people to check Talk: pages before listing things on VfD. Five VfD listings? Give me a break. The waste of time and energy implied there is mind-blowing. Noel (talk) 14:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, VfD discussion should be moved to talk page which is enough indication. --fvw* 17:21, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Template:HP Characters

Was marked for speedy deletion, but I don't believe templates match any of the speedy deletion criteria. The comment given was 'Five-template-use workaround no longer needed; Template:HP Character is the main template'.-gadfium 02:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Done, left entry because of next set, all still have things linked to them. Noel (talk) 03:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following templates are similar: Template:HP linked workaround, Template:HP ref workaround, Template:HP unlinked workaround. They should be deleted along with the above.-gadfium 02:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I agree. Delete. --Pt 02:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Netoholic @ 08:38, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

January 1

Template:Queen

Huge, orphaned, and would work just as well as a category. ] 16:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could work as a navigation box, if the formatting was cleaned up. I added it to Queen (album) and I think it could work well in those sorts of articles. Keep for now. -- Netoholic @ 21:03, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Delete, this is what categories are for. Neutrality 03:39, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

January 3

Template:Vfd delete

VfD debates do not create "speedy deletion" candidates. This template will cause confusion and interfere with the routine operation of the admins which handle completed deletion debates. I suspect it was created out of impatience. -- Netoholic @ 20:46, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

• I created this template to allow non-sysops to handle the archiving of vfd debates. Non-sysops are allowed to process 'keeps', why not 'deletes'? See WP:MAINT. Vacuum c 04:14, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, since non-sysops can't do the actual deletion, it is far better to let an admin just perform all of the steps. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Template:Content warning

Will cause a fight over its use in probably every circumstance. We already have a Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer. Would rather wait for an outcome from Misplaced Pages:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

• Delete!!! →Raul654 05:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vacuum c 18:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we have a general disclaimer. --fvw* 17:23, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Template:Rfc delete

Extremely limited usefulness. -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

January 5

Template:Game-cleanup

(plus the category it generates Category:Cvg cleanup)

We have cleanup notices already for different reasons, but I don't see the need for one for each specific subject area. It is far better to list computer game article cleanup requests on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and video games, specifically they can be listed on Template:Gamebox. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

I actually do see a need for such templates. Misplaced Pages talk:Pages needing attention#Reform_proposal has a rationale. -- Beland 16:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:CompactTOC (external links)

(and redir at Template:Compacttoc (external links))

This was being used by all of one article before I moved it over to use Template:CompactTOC4. Delete to quell m:instruction creep and to promote use of "See also" section. Even if there is none, the extra link is harmless (goes nowhere). -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Template:CompactTOC (see also)

(and redir at Template:Compacttoc (see also))

This was being used by only eight articles before I moved them over to use Template:CompactTOC4. Delete to quell m:instruction creep and to promote use of "External links" section. Even if there is none, the extra link is harmless (goes nowhere). -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

January 6

Template:Ustub

Added by User:Norm with good intentions... just didn't know that another template did the same (better) job (Template:Metastub). -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP! This template is NOT the same thing. See the talk page of the template. Norman Rogers\ 01:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - having read the talk page, I am now convinced we don't need it. I think stub categories are a terrible idea, and allowing people to create arbitrary ones is far worse. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
• Delete - read the Talk page for the template. The template makes way too many assumptions. One of the assumptions is that the category and the stub have the same name, when for geographic stubs, for just one example, it is always template:Australia-stub and Category:Australia-related stubs. That means if someone uses {{ustub|Australia}}, then they will get a red-linked Category:Australia stub at the top of the page, which they probably won't notice. To get this template to work without problems, you would have to "fix" all the geographic stubs, along with all of the other categories where they don't match the stub name. I can only see this stub causing a huge problem and creating more confusion than already exists over the topic stubs. This template needs to be deleted before it gets it anymore . gK ¿? 04:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Assume good faith: that the editor will preview the edit to make sure that the category exists. This template isn't useful for every case, but is a much more elegant approach than the hundred forgettable metastub derivatives. —Ben Brockert (42) 04:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Due to the technical limitations of this stub, this presumes that both the article name and the category name are the same and both exist. Additionally, grammarical errors in relation to the text can not be corrected since it presumes whatever you are passing as a parameter is grammarically correct to the text and the article exists.
• Additionally:
  There are several problems with the template.
  1. This assumes that the category for what you're inserting exists
  2. This assumes that the category and the article has the same name -- not all stubs do. See math-stub for example.
  3. Your stub would and could in effect create unnecessary categories and can create a lot of confusion.
  4. Another problem is the whole limiting use of stubs per page.
• And to Netoholic's reply, once the developers include some way to auto-generate categories by using some type of intersection feature, then all these stubs won't be necessary either. But we're not at that point, and Category:Stub is way too big to handle without sorting. Much like removing red link pages so that people can see what articles need to be created. (However, it doesn't help much when the red link articles become stubs... then they get lost in Category:Stub)
• I'm all for a universal template for stubs, but I rather have a universal template which the purpose is to call an existing template. The reason I say this is that the metastub templates can still be used. Again, the technical limitations would cause upicstub to be created for those people who want to use a graphical image next to their "Universal" stub. And if it was going to be assumed that the image name would be the same as the article, category with an extension of .jpg or what not, then this makes it even more confusing.
• Assuming good faith has a big problem, especially when I am trying to keep the stub sorting in the various stubs as minimal as possible without a disruption to the Misplaced Pages. The ustub template, as I said, is a good intention idea. However, categories would have to be presume existing, and some users would opt to create their own anyway. The thing I worry the most with this template is that we get categories created which might be similar, and there is no way to easily track what article is using what ustub template that breaks a category. The reason behind it is that you end up with this odd transtition of an already established pattern of templates which the single purpose is to stub sort for a specific subject... then you go around sticking this template around... how do you tell which are using the ustub template, and which one is the old one?
• Granted there are ways to this, but none of them are easy. One way to discover which ones are ustub templates is visiting the old template, discover which links or uses that template, then cross reference it to the category... assuming the category did not break as a result of the ustub template.
• The more difficult way is to attempt to go through, the now unsorted ustub template -- by the universal nature of this stub template, any numberous different articles and categories are placed in the Special:Whatlinkshere page -- and find which pages matches in the category. There is only one problem with this: The "Whatlinkshere" special page only shows up to 500 articles at a time. There are far more technical limitations that meets the eye with this template.
• Lastly, the reason why I say that the Ustub template is the same as the Metastub template is that they are the same in function, except that Ustub template has far more technical limitations which causes more problems, I believe when viewing this for the long term, that it attempts to solve. Also, it is not to say that one could not simply just use the Metastub template as the same manner as the Ustub template is trying to achieve. Actually, it seemed to me that when the Metastub template was initially created, the author seemed to want people to use the Metastub template for the purpose of avoiding the creation of new stub templates. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Holy cow, that's the longest vote I've ever seen anywehere. You should get a star for that. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:51, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• It no longer matters what happens to this template, because it has pointed out clearly that the stub categorization system is broken. The fact that a simple "tag and categorize" system like ustub can't work properly points out the twisted mess of the stub category system. The so-called "problems" are not a result of design-flaws of the template itself, but due to design flaws of the stub category system (and indirectly the mediawiki software). This template does exactly what its supposed to do, a dog should be called a dog, therefore {{ustub|dog}} does what it should.

Template:Ustub

This template calls the dog a dog, not call it a dog and put it in a horse category. The problem is that there are too categories with non-standard naming conventions, therefore there is the "limitations". Due to these problems and that this template is so controversial just because of a little {{{1}}} thingy in it means I am going abandon efforts to fix the broken stub category system with its crazy collection of tags. Instead I will be going my own way and will be creating a simpler system to organize, manage and expand stub articles which will not involve 100s of tags and categories like the current system. Norman Rogers\ 19:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's far easier to Assume good faith on a single page template, than a multiple use template. The problem is that your suggestion comes 6 months behind when this system is in place. Had it been done differently 6 months ago, our positions might have been reversed. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause

• User:CheeseDreams(who has an injunction against him, see below) has adapted his name to User:Cheese dreams and under that guise without any comment or notice to any editors concerned with these highly sensitive religious subjects created TWO an anti-Hebrew Bible templates {{BPOV}} and {{BPOVbecause}} that place highly controversial boiler-plate "introduction/s" to articles with clear POV statements that read/s: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. It is alleged that this article currently assumes the accuracy of, or concentrates only on the account according to, the Bible. A more critical interpretation, or alternate account, may exist and should be incorporated if it does" and more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:BPOV and http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:BPOVbecause. He has spammed these templates over many pages in a short while, see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Cheese_dreams

Unfortunately, CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams has exhibited a strong antipathy and hostile POV attitude and likes edit-wars when dealing with topics relating to Christianity and Judaism, see the INJUNCTION against him at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision#Editing ban of CheeseDreams : "Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity. This ban is based on aggressive POV editwarring as illustrated by the edit history of Historicity_of_Jesus." He may face a total ban, but in the meantime he is causing trouble with this new nonsense template. IZAK 14:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Note:To Christianity, the Hebrew Bible and its contents are considered to be the Old Testament of Christianity, therefore by interfering and editing articles relating to the Old Testament, User CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams has VIOLATED the injunction against him that states:"Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity..." He should be fully penalized for his devious actions. Thank you. IZAK 15:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete these highly divisive and incoherent templates. IZAK 15:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until it is explained what is wrong with the template itself. Noone here cares about the dispute with CheeseDreams, since creating the template didn't violate any injunction or policies. IZAK, please remove your long rant above and calmly, in as few words as needed and without shouting, explain why the template should be deleted. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • Netoholic, by creating the Templates, CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams has violated the injunction that clearly states: "Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity..." because the "templates" add verbose POV hostile prejudicial introductory editorial comments about subjects that are clearly in the category of Christianity (from which he is banned for now) at any rate. Furthermore, in keeping with his history of editwarring, the templates are only meant to stir up trouble. He can add the same debates in a calm fashion by discussing it in the TALK pages of the articles and not by creating templates merely because he hates the topics. What don't you get? IZAK 09:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The category BiblePOV is no more useful or encyclopedic than would be the category MathPOV used to deface such pages as Laplacian and Möbius strip. To see what is wrong with the BiblePOV template, merely see how it is used on the pages where it is used. A rational action instead of placing the BiblePOV template would have been to quote, paraphrase, and cite some recognized scholar who makes an anti-Bible argument from available empirical evidence. ---Rednblu | Talk 19:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How is there a POV other than Maths in the Laplacian or Mobius strip?

The fact that it doesn't contain such anti-biblisms is evidence that it does have the BPOV it is accused of, thus warrents NPOV notices, the BPOV notice merely explains which POV it is that the NPOV warning is against.

• Delete. Highly controversial matters can arise around religious subjects, and in order to be loyal to our NPOV policy, we may have to re-examine our content through different perspectives, religious and secular. If Cheese Dreams/CheeseDreams feels this has not been accomplished, he should initiate discussions, first by explaining his concearns. These two templates fail to explain why the content of a bible article is disputed. Furthermore, as religious NPOV issues are not exclusive to the Bible, these templates discriminate against one or two Abrahamic religions. Comment: I'd rather if IZAK had focused on the problems with the templates only and spared the details of the dispute with Cheese Dreams/CheeseDreams. Etz Haim 22:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete "According to scripture, Job was bla bla bla..." there is no need to dispute that. People need to see for themselves that it's bunk, they don't need to be preached to. Dunc|☺ 02:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, on procedural grounds as much as anything else. The NPOV of this template as it stands does seem dubious, though not beyond recovery. Unfortunately, if IZAK has pointed this out in his description of the template, it has been buried in his ranting against the user who created it. Whether this user deserves it or not, it would be nice if we could keep disputes that have already landed in arbitration off the VfD pages. J.K. 04:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • J: What is wrong with giving the WHOLE story? The matters of these foolish templates and why CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams has an injunction to NOT edit these subjects in any way are inter-linked because it revelas the motivation and problems with the one who creates the stuff for no other reason than to wage an editwar. IZAK 09:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • As I understand things, this page exists to deal with problem templates, not problem users, which are what WP:RFAr among others are for. There is nothing wrong with giving the whole story here, as you put it, but as a background to the templates' problems. Your introduction here, however, gave one sentence about the templates in question and a paragraph and a half about the user who created them and their behaviour. While I actually agree with the bulk of your complaints, I had to reread them a few times to even notice the ones which matter most! CD may be a complete jerk, but that doesn't mean everything he has come up with is so worthless as to need deleting (of course, it doesn't mean it doesn't, either). Oh, and let me clarify that part of the reason I voted "keep" was that while I do find the present wordings objectionable, I do not believe they are completely beyond redemption from a well-thought-out rewrite. J.K. 10:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • J:Now it is you that is writing copiously...But let me get to the point, the problem here is sadly NOT as you would like it to be of "problem templates, not problem users", but here it is a case of a "problem user" who defies an Injunction by creating not one but TWO templates that are in effect, according to the terms of the afore-mentioned injunction, illegal. IZAK 11:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE I couldn't have stated the reasons more clearly than Etz Haim and Rednblu. The "keep" votes strike me as mere objections to the user requesting deletion. 172

• Keep. CheeseDreams is not banned from Jewish issues and your connection with Christianity is spurious. Why should she not point out that these articles lack balance and need NPOVing? The problem I have with the anti-CheeseDreams editors is that they do not accept or acknowledge that they are actually defending a POV, and articles written from that POV. Dr Zen 10:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry Dr. Zen, I hate to have to say this to you, but ALL the articles that CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams edited with these templates are part of the Christian Old Testament aka Judaism'sHebrew Bible or Tanakh. By the way, the words New Testament would have absolutely NO meaning if there were not an "Old Testament", so there is no logic or fact or reality to what you "claim" on behalf of your friend "CD". IZAK 11:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm sorry, the template just incites too much trouble and religious contraversy. It should not be kept. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note: you should all be aware I have blocked CheeseDreams/Cheese Dreams for 24 hours due to violating the injunction and I have also deleted the templates based on this fact. If they get restored, then my vote will remain delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Any arguments I could make were already made by Rednblu, Etz Haim, and Duncharris. —Charles P.  17:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I see from the undeletion history of these pages that 172 redirected both to Template:NPOV. That seems to me like the MWOT solution and I don't know why it wasn't tried in the first place. —Charles P.  17:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Controversial COUNTER-VOTE Please note that someone has commenced a Vote for Undeletion of these templates at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion#Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause . Is that valid/legal? Please vote there is well. Thank you. IZAK 11:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, keep deleted, smite with Thor's hammer, whatever it takes. Thanks, TBSDY. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:56, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Explanation of why is on the VfUd page. CheeseDreams 01:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: May I ask these who voted keep because they found IZAK's reasoning inadequate to reconsider their vote on the basis of the remarks made by some of the others, including my own. This vote is not about agreeing or not with IZAK, it's about the templates and if they should be deleted or not. Etz Haim 02:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mischievous, can do nothing but cause trouble. Stating that an article is NPOV is sufficient. Giving a specific reason why it is NPOV is itself inserting a POV. The NPOV notice itself should be as neutral as possible. The details should be hashed out on the article's talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: These templates were incorrectly speedy deleted by User:Ta bu shi da yu without any backup from policy. The templates were created 10 hours before the injunction came into effect. They have, at present, been restored. - Vague | Rant 02:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- for the reasons stated by Dpbsmith. --G Rutter 20:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (if it's not already clear) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: while in some cases the template may be appropriate, I can see it causing more trouble than it's worth. A simple NPOV notice and a message on the talk page explaining what one things is the matter will probably do. - Vague | Rant 06:17, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Its use by a POV pushing troll aside, this template simply doesn't serve any purpose not done perfectly well by good old NPOV. We don't need separate NPOV templates for ever concievable source of POV. Snowspinner 07:21, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Have no advantages over the standard NPOV templates, and have a significant disadvantage in that they are inherently POV. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: hopeless POV problem. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - No more useful than NPOV. That it's creator is under injunction on Christianity-related topics because of previous POV makes the already dubious merit of the template that much more dubious. It seems to be a mechanism of POV, so delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 7

Template:Csdtalkhist

Misuse of the Template namespace for such a narrow purpose. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

• Keep for ten days, then delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 04:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait, why do you want to delete it? Are there template requirements somewhere that I haven't seen? From the page you linked to, the template namespace is used to "place recurring messages (...) into articles in a consistent manner; insert boilerplate messages for various issues like copyright violation, neutrality disputes, etc., using a simple shortcut command". I'm using it for both. From this very page, the template is not unnoteworthy, redundant with categories, and has not been orphaned. Define misuse and better justify your case. —Ben Brockert (42) 04:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Beyond those ten related talk pages, this has no hope of any other use. I'm going to replace the template with the text of the message. -- Netoholic @ 06:50, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
      • That's what templates are for: text that's the same over many pages. Further, you can't unilaterally bypass the deletion process; as such I've reverted your bot's edits. When the talk pages are no longer in use, and there's no chance that the message will need to be changed, that will be the time to substring the messages in. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, then you can remove them at the end of this week with the vote here ends. This template is useless, and you're just picking a fight over nothing. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
          • It's demonstrably not useless. I assure you that I am not the one who picked this fight. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
            • GOT 'EM BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and.....wow....step away from the keyboard there Netoholic. Cburnett 07:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not the one using bold text up there. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
    • You know what? You're absolutely right. You're the one "unilaterally bypass the deletion process," to put it in Brocker's words. I see no problem with using a template for this purpose. You call it misuse, I make the 2nd person who disagrees.Cburnett 08:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Does the phrase "incorrect use" sound better? -- Netoholic @ 08:06, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
• Keep. Size of applicable scope is not a criteria for templates (or for much else in WP.) The template adds useful explanatory text to a group of pages, simplifying the task of helping users reach the broader topic. - Keith D. Tyler 18:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until the vote is over, then substitute the text into the pages directly. --Carnildo 05:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, Netoholic, you've outdone yourself in terms of goofiness this time.

Footnote templates

Template:footnote1, Template:f1, Template:f2, Template:f3, Template:f4, Template:f5, Template:f6, Template:f7, Template:f8, Template:f9, Template:f10, Template:f11, Template:f12, Template:f13, Template:f14, Template:f15, Template:f16, Template:f17, Template:f18, Template:f19, Template:f20
Template:footnote1back, Template:f1b, Template:f2b, Template:f3b, Template:f4b, Template:f5b, Template:f6b, Template:f7b, Template:f8b, Template:f9b, Template:f10b, Template:f11b, Template:f12b, Template:f13b, Template:f14b, Template:f15b, Template:f16b, Template:f17b, Template:f18b, Template:f19b, Template:f20b

These have all been recently replaced with a simpler, and more powerful, set of only two templates - Template:fn (notationTemplate:Fn) and Template:fnb (Template:Fnb reference info). These will take the footnote number as a parameter, as shown in use at Misplaced Pages:Footnote2 demo page. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Time to get rid of these. --Alterego 06:00, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Obsoleted by the new footnote machinery. jni 10:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all, I agree.User:Pt/sig 21:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:University information

Fork, or perhaps a well-intentioned duplicate, but it is redundant with much more popular Template:Infobox University. -- Netoholic @ 08:15, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

• Merge (Convenient you find a template to delete that I created after the above disagreement. Coincident or not, doesn't matter much.) The two templates are, indeed, different with Template:University information being superior, if you will, which would have been noticed upon inspection. I've not merged the two because I just simply hadn't done it yet. I vote merge this into Template:Infobox University, which then requires editing the use of it on several dozen university sites. Cburnett 08:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I see noting wort merging. Your template includes an "Endowment" field, which is blank even on the one article it's being used on and of dubious need anyway. Convert Iowa State University to use T:IU, delete this, and let's move on. -- Netoholic @ 09:18, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
    • Endowment only applies to private schools I believe (Harvard University, Carnegie Mellon University, Princeton University, Yale University, etc.), which there are plenty of and Iowa State University is not. There are many schools that include this in a raw table infobox (most just in the article) in their article and Template:Infobox University could not be used on them without deleting information from the article. And Endowment is not the only difference between the templates. Still merge. Cburnett 18:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Different infobox templates are needed for different educational systems and perhaps different types of schools, but should preferrably conform to the same "look and feel" and the same naming standard. If another infobox for U.S. universities is needed (which is quite possible with the diversity that exists in the U.S. educational world), it should be based on Template:Infobox University. Both should also be renamed from the present generic names to reflect that they are indeed made for U.S. universities only and not really useful for universities in Europe or elsewhere. In any case, this should be discussed in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Universities. / Tupsharru 05:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Gundam Seed mobile weapons

Huge and redundant with List of Mobile Suits; no replies to a comment I left on its talk 4 days ago. Convert to Category:Gundam Seed mobile weapons (or the existing Category:Gundam weaponry Category:Gundam Mobile Suits). Mrwojo 20:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• (Hope I did this right...) I personally think every article the template refers to should be merged together to: Mobile Weapons of the Cosmic Era. If the template is deleted, please add Category:Gundam Seed to every article. 132.205.94.241 02:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That would make an extremely large and unwieldy article. Perhaps a group of consolidated articles might be appropriate, but one single article would not work very well. Iceberg3k 04:32, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • The articles contain too much fancruft, so can be pared down to fit in a single page. 132.205.15.43 04:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, "pared down" the point of being completely uninformative. 68.47.175.214
        • In that case, we should delete the entire article set. 132.205.95.68 21:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Why? Because you say so? 68.47.175.214
• delete. huge and redundant--Jiang 09:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 68.47.175.214
• delete Pjacobi 20:27, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
• Keep. It makes navigating the articles much easier. Redxiv 20:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems useful to me. Space Pirate Minagi 01:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I say, that tempelate is rather large, but all the info in those pages seems accurate and informative. Merging it all into one big thread would require taking out all the info, which defeats the purpose of having the articles in the first place. This is an encylopedia, after all. I suggest splitting the suits up by Faction to clear space and havins sub tempelates for each faction in the correct pages, having all pages link to the master Gundam SEED/SEED destiny page. *SWE*

Template:CompactTOCallplustwo2

(and redirect at MediaWiki:CompactTOCallplustwo2)

Really unusual name, and fully redundant with Template:CompactTOC4. Was in use on only about 8 lists before migrating. -- Netoholic @ 21:49, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

• It would be nice if you would leave them alone so that other people could look at their usage, rather than orphaning them before putting them up for deletion. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have changed nothing about the template's design itself. I have edited the few articles it was used on to make use of more popular and better designed equivalent. If it makes it easier, I'll orphan them, then come back in a week and nominate them for deletion calling them "orphaned". I'd just assume be clear of the trash quickly, and not have the TFD notice appear in the table of contents of an article. Stop being so critical. -- Netoholic @ 01:23, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
    • STOP! Cburnett 23:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • From the top of this page: "Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing." —Ben Brockert (42) 01:35, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't write that, and as an editor of this wikipedia, I chose to remove this template and replace it with a better one that worked. Stop polluting the discussion of the merits of this template with this discussion, move it to Talk. -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• I totally agree this is redundant and should be deleted by replacing its use with Template:CompactTOC4 or similar. Peter Hitchmough 17:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:ExLarry

(and MediaWiki:ExLarry)

Was in use on just one article, but I moved the reference to the talk page (without using the template). Nice bit of history, but I don't think we need it. -- Netoholic @ 22:31, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

• Delete. No utility anymore. Articles should not be attributed to their authors in the article itself and I don't see much need to use this in talk pages either. jni 10:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 9

Template:NPOV-patch

and Template:SectNPOV-patch

This is a highly POV version of the NPOV template that is only being used on one article, Alfred Kinsey. My "translation" of the template: "It was not NPOV, and it's still not NPOV". Do we really need yet another dispute template (there are now 22!)? gK ¿?

• Delete gK ¿?
• Keep, I think it's quite useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The template equivalent of a POV fork of an article. Whether statements in a page are "weasel terms" or not is subject to an individual's interpretation and therefore POV. Such matters should be discussed in the talk page, while the NPOV template on the article would suffice. Etz Haim 05:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Netoholic @ 07:20, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
• Keep but improve and recategorize: When I created this template and Template:SectNPOV-patch (for sections), the intent was to say "An NPOV issue was resolved by making an article/section that is stylistically poor." See Lithuanian language#Lexical borrowings in the language for an example. Maybe it belongs with "article namespace" templates more than "dispute" templates. --Theodore Kloba 14:31, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Your description ("An NPOV issue was resolved") is a pefect example of when the NPOV tag should be replaced by either the Attention or Cleanup tags, rather than create a new tag. Your Lithuanian language example, to me, looks like it still should be just an SectNPOV tag.

• Delete - the wording is awful, POV, and there is no way to fix that. Grue 14:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but "(also know as Weasel words)" ought to be eliminated. It is true that patching with qualifying statements doesn't NPOV an article, so why ought we to remove a tag that just requests further assistance with a full NPOV-ing rewrite? -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, use either template:pov check, template:npov or template:cleanup. --fvw* 17:24, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Template:Marshals

Huge, replaceable with category, and the name of the template/category is too generic. Suggest adding the raw text of the template to Category:Polish Marshals (or whatever), categorizing the articles, and then deleting the template. -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC) (mod'd)

• Keep--Emax 13:00, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • reason? --Jiang 09:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I like big templates better then categories or list articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looking at something like John III of Poland, it seems that someone's gone completely overboard on Polish templates and needs to be pointed in the direction of WP:CG. Proteus (Talk) 15:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Divide onto four parts and categorise. The John III example looks very convinving to me. Halibutt 17:51, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Space Cadet 18:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • reason? --Jiang 09:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Divide into four templates with cross-links to the other templates. Would provide the same navigationability without taking up more than a page of screen real-estate. Cburnett 18:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as is Rübezahl 21:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Welcome back to Misplaced Pages. -- Netoholic @ 01:49, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
• Keep Schwartz und Weiss 00:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Misplaced Pages. -- Netoholic @ 01:49, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  • 10th edit --Jiang 09:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for being too huge. Categories and links to lists are better. If not, the divide. --Jiang 09:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - while I admire the amount of information on Polish history on Misplaced Pages, these boxes don't add anything useful to the articles they're in. The boxes that show previous/next one would be much useful. And "Marshals" is a bad name. Grue 06:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Divide seems reasonable. / Tupsharru 18:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Divide and Rename. Marshall is far too general. Rmhermen 17:56, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sejm Marshals

Another very large template which should move to categories. Suggest adding the raw text of the template to Category:Sejm Marshals, categorizing the articles, and then deleting the template. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• Keep--Emax 20:33, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • reason? --Jiang
• Keep--Space Cadet 20:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • reason? --Jiang
• Divide into five templates with cross-links to the other templates. Would provide the same navigationability without taking up more than a page of screen real-estate. Cburnett 22:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Tirid Tirid 00:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Welcome back to Misplaced Pages, you should edit more. -- Netoholic @ 01:49, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  • 19 edits only --Jiang 09:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. too huge and takes up too much space. try categories and links to lists. If not, then divide into more manageable chunks--Jiang 09:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, that's probably the worst of them. I don't want these things to load everytime I read these articles. Grue 06:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Divide, don't keep it as it is. / Tupsharru 18:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Divide onto separate tables and categorize. Halibutt 11:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

January 10

Template:Test0

Unnecessary and badly worded near-duplicate of Template:Test. ] 12:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Netoholic @ 04:54, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
• I'm up for any rewording of it, but I do think it's necessary for someone who is not an admin. I can't tell some anon I've deleted his test if I don't have the capability. However, as the template's author, I abstain. - Vague | Rant 10:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense, as the person who CSD-marked it you have deleted it, by proxy. I don't see anything wrong with voting if you're the author of the template. Delete. --fvw* 17:26, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

January 11

Template:RfAInstructions

This was previously used on only one page, that being Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship, to reduce the overall page size when votes were held on the RfA page itself. Now that votes on RfA are held on sub-pages, this has been re-integrated into the main page itself. -- Netoholic @ 04:54, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• How are the attribution requirements of the GFDL satisfied when something like this is deleted? Does the page history of the template need to be merged into the page history of the page it's merged into? —Ben Brockert (42) 05:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • You'll have to ask everyone on WP:VFD that votes "Merge and delete redirect". I don't know the technicalities, but it's just how we do things on a daily basis. This is a weird place to bring this up. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete is an explicitly invalid vote, and always has been. Citing someone else's ignorance to justify your own is not a good way to accomplish the goals of this page. —Ben Brockert (42) 22:14, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

January 12

Template:Wesleyan

This was used incorrectly on one page (Ohio Wesleyan University). Most of the enteries listed in this template are being voted on for deletion, which as of January 12, 2005 8:45PM (EST) are in favor of deleting those nominal pages. Thus, template serves no purpose. stude62 stude62 01:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Evil Monkey → Talk 03:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 10:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 13

Template:Nauru-stub

User:InShaneee put the tfd message on this stub yesterday (but didn't list it here), saying in the template talk: Can't see how that many articles, if any, would ever use this template.

• Since then, I've added 20 articles to this template (if I'd known it existed earlier i would have put them in earlier), and there are quite a few more to add. Keep. Grutness| 10:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep gK ¿? 03:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Evil Monkey → Talk 03:20, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.--Pharos 03:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Etz Haim 10:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Belgian man 13:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 16

Template:Canada-place-stub and Template:Ireland-place-stub

There are over a dozen geo-stub subcategories: US-geo-stub, UK-geo-stub, Australia-geo-stub... in fact all but two are in the form "Template:Foo-geo-stub". These two are the odd ones out. Suggest rename to Template:Canada-geo-stub and Template:Ireland-geo-stub. Grutness| 00:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like it the way it is. Keep Spinboy 02:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

any more objective reason than "I like it?" I mean, that's a fair enough comment, but it'd be good to have a more substantive argument. Grutness|

The word place is more accurate than geo. A good example is "7 Rideau Gate." That's not a geographical area. It's a residence. Thus, place is more accurate. I'm just glad I won't be the one to have to put the new tag on more than 200 articles in the Canadian category already, or the Irish category. That's a lot of articles. Spinboy 18:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No need to edit them all. We can instead set up place to redir to geo so those pages still work; and only put geo on Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Stubs/By region. —msh210 02:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rename. Neutrality 03:38, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rename to match other geo-stubs. BlankVerse 07:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

rename - but if Spinboy wants to put up a discussion to rename them all to xxxx-place-stub and change all the pages and fix all the links then (possibly after enlisting help from a bot?) I'll support changing all the geo-stubs since place is more exact and simple. Mozzerati 13:03, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Rename to match other geo-stubs. --Viriditas | Talk 06:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep as is. Unnecessary standardisation. zoney ♣ talk 10:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Everyone who is using them should know about the difference. Lectonar 14:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There're more important things to work on. Write some articles for these stubs and there'll be no need for the templates at all. 350 Irish place stubs and 482 Canada ones to do. Get working people! Seabhcán 17:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just create a redirect from either one to the other, and leave it at that. Don't delete, because there might be users who'll use them and get redlinks. Redundancy is good. This is not what this page is for. Dunc|☺ 21:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to ...-geo-stub, place excludes a lot more types of things than geo. --fvw* 21:38, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

It's beginning to look like redirects are the best answer. Sorry to act like a newbie, but do you do them exactly the same way as with articles, or is there something more technical which needs to be done? Oh, and as for "more important things to do", cutting the 4200 unsorted geo-stubs down to a manageable level and putting them in subcategories where everyone can find them to work on more easily (which is what this is involved with) is important work. Grutness| 22:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect from place-stub to geo-stub. Keep the template names consistent. RedWolf 04:59, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as is --Boothy443 09:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep - it's okay as it is. Pete C 18:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect sounds like the best answer. I think we should keep some continuity. Lorddude 04:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-USGS

The proper template to use is Template:PD-USGov-Interior-USGS. It was created by a user who (I believe) didn't check WP:ICT recently and assumed a different copyright-tag hierarchy from the one we have currently. grendel|khan 21:22, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

• Redirect to Template:PD-USGov-Interior-USGS. --SPUI 01:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 17

Template:TubeNavbox

I played around with this last year, but never got it working properly and has been superceded anyway. Mackensen (talk) 03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Blacklist

I see no advantage of using this over using Template:vfd. Since this template gives no way to appeal against deletion, it is inferior to that process.-gadfium 07:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What an odd idea, delete. --fvw* 17:14, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Delete, no comprehensible function. --Michael Snow 17:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I had to un-"blacklist" an article last night. —Ben Brockert (42) 02:16, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No such thing as blacklisting on Misplaced Pages! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. –– Constafrequent 03:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 18

Template:Whatever

This is an image copyright tag, which asserts that you must use the image if you are moral, but can't use if it you're not. The GFDL doesn't differentiate between who is moral enough to use our material, and there is potential for legal problems here too. Dunc|☺ 16:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

... the image, and everything else in the world. I hereby declare that I will never subject Misplaced Pages (or any later user of my images) to any legal challenge regarding the use of my work, whether I personally consider the use of it to be ethical or not. Chamaeleon 17:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unambiguous like Fair Use? The declaration squarely puts the image, and everything else, into the public domain, as though the work had been found on Mars. Chamaeleon 17:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's public domain? Great, stick a public domain tag on it. No need for a new tag. License tags are not the appropriate place for your opinions on copyright. --fvw* 18:15, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Delete, and restore the original copyright tags for all images User:Chamaeleon has uploaded (unless a better solution is found). Image copyright notices must be unambiguous. Fredrik | talk 17:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, copyright tags should contain the licence the image is released under, not sociopolitical rants. --fvw* 17:27, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

What if there is no licence? An explanation is then necessary. Chamaeleon 17:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there is no license, we either

• Use it under fair use, in which case it needs a fair use tag and an assessment of whether it is fair use

or

• We cannot use it because it would be a copyright violation. Your declaration that you will never sue wikipedia about it is nice, but not sufficient. You'd also have to sign away the rights of your heirs to do so, which you can't do unless you licence the image to us which you don't want to do. --fvw* 18:15, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Last I checked, every image using this template was licensed in the past under a CC license or the GFDL. Whoever implements removing this template should reinstate the relevant licenses (check the image description page's history). Recall that once something has been released under a license by the copyright holder, it can't be unreleased. dbenbenn | talk 15:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nope, but he can first release it under a CC or GFDL licence, and then release it into the public domain. Those who have aquired a licence will still have that licence, but in addition they will be free to handle it as an uncopyrighted work, as will everybody else. --fvw* 17:21, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

It's best for manking that this should be deleted. See also Template:Whatever-screenshot. dbenbenn | talk 17:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, templates are not soapboxes. older≠wiser 18:40, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Del —msh210 19:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 20

Template:Talkpagepolitics

On Misplaced Pages, there are a lot of different political views represented. That's a good thing: it makes it a better encyclopedia. But if you want to rant about or praise ItemX, then the article or talk page for ItemX is not the best place to do it; neither rants nor gushing help neither the article nor the growth of the article. If you want to rant/gush, set up a special page like User:YOURUserNAME/ItemX rant page or User:YOURUserNAME/ItemX gush page.

Absolutely unecessary, and used in only one place. →Iñgōlemo← 02:13, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Template:FRWL actors

After dicussion it was decided to not use this template. It's currently orphaned and theres truly no use for it whatsoever. K1Bond007 05:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - K1Bond007, can you provide a link to the discussion about this? -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was between the original author and myself, mostly taking place on his and my discussion pages. K1Bond007 06:12, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Dr No actors

After discussion it was decided to not use this template. It's currently orphaned and theres truly no use for it whatsoever. K1Bond007 05:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - K1Bond007, can you provide a link to the discussion about this? -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Template:Chinese suzerain

Useless template. The anon who created it wrote on the template the comment that "this list is incomplete. Please help Misplaced Pages by expanding it." If we really did complete it, it would contain just about every country in East Asia, since at some point they have probably come under Chinese suzerainty. Like I said, a useless template. —Lowellian (talk) 01:24, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 01:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Holding Cell

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (Admin or otherwise) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted. If you've cleared a page, note it here.

Remove Entirely

Template:Past-vfd

(and redirect at MediaWiki:Past-vfd)

Looks like this was used at some point to put a note on certain pages that a previous VFD took place. It made a like to a /deletion subpage where the VfD discussion was copied to. Modern practice on VFD, though, is to copy the VFD discussion directly into the Talk: page, so this is not something we need anymore. Will require some cleanup (copying the /deletion text to Talk: and deleting) on the pages where it is being used. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

• Cleared. -- Netoholic @ 06:47, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Deleted. But it's still listed on a couple of user pages and template list pages. --ssd 08:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lines

Except for Purple Line, all the links and locations are on disambiguation pages. Something like this should be done for each transit system, but on a general scale like this there is an infinite number of possible names for colored lines. --SPUI 22:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Cleared. Andros 1337 05:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fromwikipedia

(also MediaWiki:Fromwikipedia & redirect at MediaWiki talk:Fromwikipedia)

This template used to be the system message which generated the "." message at the top of each page. That function has been moved to MediaWiki:Tagline in the recent software upgrade, making this (now template) unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Template:Aboutwikipedia

(also MediaWiki:Aboutwikipedia)

Also redundant under 1.4 software update. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

template:Enduring single-issue dispute

A nonsensical semi-permanent dispute tag. →Raul654 05:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Convert to category

Template:Hetman

• Oversized monstrosity of a template. Maybe split into 4, by its four current sections, but better off just being left as the category it includes. --Whosyourjudas\ 03:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleared, all articles moved to Category:Hetmans. Need to also delete Template talk:Hetman -- Netoholic @ 08:36, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

• The voting ended without reaching an agreement. Pls reinstall the template.--Emax 13:10, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The logged discussion is here. I count five for either delete or categorize (which I agree), and only two keeps, including yours without any extra explanation. This has been listed here much longer than usual. I'll be happy to help you however else you need to make use of the category option. -- Netoholic @ 19:33, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
    • :( Well, at least leave the template on hetman article talk page for future discussions, it makes for a nice reference tool /list. I always said if it was split into four, it wouldn't be so bad. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Footer

• Misplaced Pages:Deletion