Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vacuum (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 24 January 2005 (Sorry, I'm gonna have to revert you. the message says to feel free to unlink them, the templates are different, and linking them is like copying all the votes from one to another.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:38, 24 January 2005 by Vacuum (talk | contribs) (Sorry, I'm gonna have to revert you. the message says to feel free to unlink them, the templates are different, and linking them is like copying all the votes from one to another.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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.

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)
Rename to ...geo-stub and redirect the non-standard name to that. jni 09:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those who say "Keep", perhaps an explanation is in order. I've been busily cutting down the generic geo-stubs by putting them in their sub-categories. There were an unmanageable number (4200), which I've now reduced to a less lunatic 1800. People are still using the generic {{geo-stub}}, and part of the reason (according to the people I've asked), is that it's too difficult to remember the names of the possible subcategories. If all the names were consistent, much of this problem would disappear. Grutness| 10:13, 22 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)

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)
Delete, Misplaced Pages does not endorse anarcho-nihilism. Vacuum c 19:33, Jan 21, 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)

Not every country in East Asia paid tributes to imperial China, and many of the countries which paid tributes no longer exist, e.g. Yüeh-Chih (Yuezhi) and Ta-Yuan. —Instantnood 08:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Disregard. First and so far only edit by this user. --Jiang 06:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list like this should be an article, not a template. Templates like this would be impossible to work with. Can you imagine having templates for "states that used to be British colonies", "states that used to be French colonies", "states that used to be satrapies of the Persian Empire", "states that came under the control of Germany during WW2", ad nauseam? How many templates would the article of each city, region, and country have at the bottom? 10? 20? This isn't what templates are for. -- ran (talk) 03:35, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete useless and sometimes POV to label some relationships as such. Use categories if absolutely necessary, but im leaning against even that. --Jiang 06:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

template:Enduring single-issue dispute

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

I added the second template template because it's virtually identical to the first, except uglier. It's saying almost the exact same thing, but if anybody feels that it warrants a seperate entry, go ahead and move it there. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (edited 03:14, 23 Jan 2005)
  • Delete. The goal is to fix the article, not load it up with ugly tags. Rhobite 05:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The dispute isn't going away any time soon: in the mean time, people ought to know what's going on, like any dispute tag. (Note: the article in question is clitoris, and the issue is whether the "vulva image" should be there.) —Ashley Y 05:55, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
    • Please don't make templates so that you can put your own editorial comments at the top of a single page. Rhobite 06:00, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's no more an "editorial comment" than putting up the NPOV template. And of course this template can be used by other articles that may need it. —Ashley Y 06:05, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there's an NPOV issue, stick an NPOV tag on it. Incidentally, the enduring single issue at Clitoris appears to be whether or not to have an enduring single issue tag on it. Odd, that. --fvw* 03:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vacuum c 15:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -Frazzydee|✍ 15:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jirate 15:27, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. ] 17:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 198 and CookieCaper both added the notice when it was removed, I presume their votes would be 'Keep'. Vacuum c 17:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not to be confrontational, but I think we should let 198 and CookieCaper vote for themselves. Timbo ( t a l k ) 20:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far too vague. Use NPOV or some other more specific template, according to your own specific objection to the article content at present. Also consider entering the page on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment under the section titled Article content disputes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Whoever created this template: why not create a template denoting an image dispute? I don't think there is one at present. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 21

Template:CompactTOCallplustwo

(and redirect at MediaWiki:CompactTOCallplustwo)

Previously used on only three lists, but redundant with Template:CompactTOC4. -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Template:Trash

POV, potentially newcomer-biting, and redundant with {delete}, much as Template:Blacklist above. Niteowlneils 20:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Aww, I wondered how long it would take to appear. Grunt won't be best pleased ;D --BesigedB 21:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • delete.-gadfium 05:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh 06:28, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, oh dear. A self-defining template. Delete. Grutness| 06:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- didn't we already go through this? See its old vfd page- this one just changes adds some text. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I deleted it last time around, and I'll delete it again. The formatting was nicer than that of the last iteration, but the content was just as pointless and just as insulting. Don't do this, people. —Charles P.  19:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Content, minus the TFD notice, was:

This article is trash. You can help Misplaced Pages by deleting it.

If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself.

Make sure no other pages link here and check the page's history before deleting.

January 22

Template:Gay

A new template, by an IP, too. Problem is, it is highly US-centric and filled with red links to articles the IP seems to think should have been written or something. "Gay Friendly Religions" as the first link (in red), not exactly what is that relevant everywhere in the world. "Civil Right Movements" lists US links only (except ILGA) and are the "Log Cabin Republicans" a civil rights movement? And what's "Countries With Organized Gay Populations" supposed to mean? There are lots more countries with gay rights organisations, and not every gay or lesbian living in those countries is a member of some organisation. In other words, highly questionable, that thing. I'd say let's get rid of it. -- AlexR 09:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote keep. I believe with some editing it can be better. I question the idea of flat out deleting a template that can be useful for Misplaced Pages's entries on the gay community. Here is my analysis of the problem you specified:
  • Gay Friendly Religions - Religion is a global matter; it is not "US-centric". Perhaps Misplaced Pages could use an entry detailing the religious beliefs of the gay community not just an article explaining how many religions view homosexuality.
    • Religion may be a global matter, but putting it in such a prominent position would seem inappropriate in most countries who recognize "gay" as a community. Most gay people in most places of the world have other priorites.
  • Civil Rights Movement - Actually three of the eight links are global organizations. If you can find others to add, please do. The Log Cabin Republicans support efforts for the Republican Party to include gays in policy making.
    • Yes, well, but why have so many US-organisations anyway? The English WP is not the USA-WP. And I know what the log cabin republicans are, I just doubt they deserve such a prominent position.
  • Countries With Organized Gay Populations - If you notice the links to the countries are entitled "The History of Gays in Canada" and so on. Misplaced Pages could use articles detailing the events and history of Gays in specific countries.
    • The title in that case is simply inaccurate. Also, how about writing the articles first and then linking to it? It seems rather pointless to have so many red links in a box.
If you feel the template needs some editing, go ahead. Why delete a template with the potential of enriching Misplaced Pages? --Apollomelos 15:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because I do not see that this template (or similar attempts) does enrich Misplaced Pages. That is a general problem with those boxes, see also Misplaced Pages:Article series boxes policy (proposed) -- AlexR 02:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Misplaced Pages is not... an advocacy organization, self-help, or support group. Consider creating or joining/starting a Gay/Lesbian cultures or studies project here on Misplaced Pages, and developing a template for that project? - Amgine 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Writing and organizing factual articles on a subject of widespread interest is not advocacy, self-help, or support. It's encyclopedia writing. Gazpacho 01:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Questions how are articles on gay history an "advocacy organization"? When articles on Jewish or African-American history are not? This template is nearly identical to the template entitled Jew except gay related. Is template Jew an "advocacy organization" too? --Apollomelos 17:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's got POV problems, and it's a series of lists awkwardly forced into infobox format. There might be a place for infoboxes on related history or organization articles, but this template doesn't look like it's going to do the job iMeowbot~Mw 00:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it needs some editing. Misplaced Pages does need an infobox for the pages related to the gay community. --Apollomelos 17:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Even edited, I think that this template is doomed to have POV problems. For example, it still starts out with a long list of LGBT support organizations, and omits the groups dedicated to opposing us. "List of . . ." articles with supporting and opposing organizations can work as separate pieces, but in the context of a shared infobox it looks (and is) censored. It also uses this term "the gay community" which perpetuates the falsehood that we all belong to one big club.
When I wrote "infoboxes" I meant just that, more than one. History articles might possibly benefit from a timeline footer, and a common footer or infobox for organizations' articles might make sense, but the infobox under discussion is more of a political advertisement than informative. iMeowbot~Mw 13:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Edited. I did some fixing up. Is it suitable now? I feel it no longer fits the prerequisites for a candidate of deletion. --Apollomelos
  • No, it is not much better now, and therefore remains a candidate for deletion. -- AlexR 02:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is unnecessary and POV merely by its inclusion. Any pertinent articles can be linked from the homosexuality article. Having an entire template just to link to articles dealing with a particular form of sexual deviancy is a bit gratuitous. This gay template is not analagous to the Jew template. Gay is not a race. Nido 00:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • comment - If you could please try to keep your personal opinions aside when making your votes. Aside from the plainly inflamitory comment labeling millions humans as deviants, your insinuation that homosexuality is a choice shows a lack of knowledge in the area which you are speaking against, when there have been many studies that show that it may be related to genetics or fetal chemical alterations at critical developmental periods. That aside, please try to make your votes with an air of objectivity, rather then just being objectionable. Arcuras 01:22, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing in my comments were personal opinion. Homosexuality is deviant by definition as it is a significant deviation from 'typical' sexual behavior and one which—despite its ubiquitous acceptance in Western media—is not commonly accepted as normal. This is independent of my own opinions on homosexuality and the nature of homosexuality as either voluntary or innate, both of which have no relevance to this discussion. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm a bigot. Nido 04:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem I am having with what you said, and what you are still saying, is with the extreme negitive connotation of the word "Deviant". "Sexual deviancy" is usually reserved for such things as peadophilia or necrophilia... to apply such a label to the GLBT community causes your motives to be cast into doubt. I hartily admit that "gay" sex is not viewed as "normal", but "normal" and "typical" are both arbitrary terms placed upon by a majority, and thus are inherantly biased. Also, I didn't insinuate you were a bigot, I was insinuating you were being offencive. Homophobe/Bigot are not words I use lightly, certainly not after only first coming into contact with someone. Arcuras 05:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - It might be useful for use on some of the GLBT related articles, much like the Same-Sex Marriage template - however, it needs to be heavily edited for both content, pov issues, naming conventions, Americentrism... and surely we can come up with a less garish picture - that one just clashes horribly Arcuras 01:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) Upon pondering it for a while, changing from week to keep. Arcuras 02:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and KEEP - I am strongly opposed to deleting this template. It is very NPOV as is, especially with that flag, but that is easily changed. I propose that it be renamed to Sexual orientation and have subsections for the asexual, bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, and transexual. Making a bit of a leap from that point, the Sexual orientation template should be a subsection of a Human sexuality template. We probably need a WikiProject Sexuality or something. --Alterego 01:48, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep! There is not one single reason other than homophobia to delete this template. Notice the statements’ of those who wish it deleted:
    • Gay related pages are an “advocacy organization” (Amgine)
    No, Misplaced Pages is not a place for a POV template, and this one has no other need for existence. I also encouraged the creation of a project focusing on G/L studies which would then create a need for such a template. Do not attempt to "interpret" my statement; you are about as far off-base in doing so as it is possible to be. - User:Amgine
    • Homosexuals are deviant (Nido)
Even the wiki who brought it up for deletion seemed to feel very agitated when one user placed transgender with other sexual minorities in an apparent mistake. I wonder if that’s indicative of the wiki’s feelings towards sexual minorities such as gays. Personal views towards those who are gay have no place in an academic encyclopedia. I am astonished with the amount of homophobia on this discussion. I half expect a book burning to soon take place on other “deviant” subjects. ScionElement
  • Yes, anyone who voices opposition against anything remotely related to homosexuality is obviously "homophobic". It doesn't sound like you're pushing an agenda or anything. And thanks for misquoting me. Nido 06:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep.-gadfium 05:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm not a specialist in that topic but I see nothing wrong with the template. Grue 06:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, ditto. Could actually be expanded a little (Maybe Ancient Greece? Maybe the Fa'afafine (sp?) of the Pacific Islands? Maybe add Nazi Germany to the Perscution section?), but certainly this should be kept. Grutness| 06:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ow. My eyes. Snowspinner 01:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - violates NPOV, as well as any standards of style or good taste. This is a worse abuse of templates for POV-pushing than even Mr-Natural-Health's creative abuses of the system - David Gerard 01:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What? Recognizing gays as a group on the same level of study as others such as Christians, Jews, African Americans, etc, is a violation of NPOV? Do we need to ensure that gays are seen to be a group unworthy of recognition because they are "deviants" or something? -- Apollomelos 19:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No. We just need to ensure that people are aware that some people think gays are deviants. Also that homosexuality exists outside of the US. Also, we probably shouldn't have a gay rights image as one of the most prominant pictures on every article involving homosexuality - particularly, say, Homophobia. Beyond that, boxes shouldn't contain red links, boxes should only be used when a category system could not possibly work, and straw man arguments that accuse people who want this box deleted of being homophobic are absurd and offensive, particularly when the main advocate for deletion is one of the most outspoken supporters and editors regarding GLBT issues on Misplaced Pages. Snowspinner 12:49, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Tally Of Vote
  • Keep - 8 - apollomelos, gazpacho, arcuras, alterego, scionelement, gadfium, grue, grutness
  • Delete - 6 - alexr, davidgerard, snowspinner, nido, imeowbot, amgine

-- Apollomelos 19:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep but Edit On principle I think we should avoid deleting other people's work unless absolutely necessary. On the other hand flying the gay flag seems like a bit of advocacy, regardless of what other groups may have done. And I am in favor of including the "flat Earthers" and putting in a line about the "Behavior modification" sites. We will never sink them but they will surely sink themselves. And I think it will be more honest that way.
    Oh yes, with that flag there it really is not the most esthetic thing I've ever seen in my life. Let's be a little soft, no? And thank you for asking my opinion!

Haiduc 02:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Everything gay gets listed for deletion. Hyacinth 03:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Edit' -- actually, Keep but rebuild from ground up. It is incredibly Americocentric -- you wouldn't know there were any gay people anywhere else in the world. It generalizes gay male culture to all sectors of queer identity, among other ways by using "gay" where "queer" is meant (regardless of whether or not you like the word "queer," it sure as hell isn't just the gay community or gay leadership or what have you). A template of this sort would be nice; this isn't it. - Montréalais 03:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to footer this thing will get in the way of images--Jiang 03:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Won't bother repeating the above sentiments. ugen64 04:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hopelessly POV. - Vague | Rant 12:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What ugen64 said. Proteus (Talk) 12:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - though I would, myself use seperate templates such as Template:History of Homosexuality on most articles. There is no legitimate reason for this deletion, though users should feel free to edit it. --Oldak Quill 12:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 23

Template:1, Template:2, Template:3, Template:4, Template:5, Template:6

These are no longer necessary in MediaWiki 1.4, since it doesn't interpret the {{1}} inside {{{1}}} as a template. Goplat 07:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Template:Former British colonies

This is a misuse of templates. We already have too many boxes and the last thing we would want is to have a box reflecting every territorial change of a particular country. This could bring us twenties and thirties of these stupid pastel colored boxes. (Think:we already have Template:Commonwealth_of_Nations) Replace with Category:Former British colonies, which already exists within this template. --Jiang 07:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed - Delete. Not to mention the facts that (1) it could do with some spellchecking ("Posessions"?); and (2) it only includes about 1/3 of the places that should be on the list (only two places listed in Africa? What about Gold Coast, Lagos, Northern Nigeria, Southern Nigeria, Southern Cameroons, Kenya, Uganda, Zanzibar, Tanganyika, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, Basutoland, Sierra Leone, Niger Coast, Oil Rivers, Gambia, Southern Rhodesia, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Cape Colony, Natal, South West Africa, Northern Rhodesia, Somaliland, and Nyasaland? Um... did I miss any?). Grutness| 08:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Everybody can help enriching the list instead of requesting for deletion. There are a handful of such templates on other colonies (of the Netherlands, of Portugal, for instance). If this template is to be deleted we have to seriously think about the treatment to other similar templates. — Instantnood 11:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • 3rd edit by this user, the other two were also in support of crap created by the same anon. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes. This is what categories are for. I will nominate the other templates for deletion soon. Just because there's already crap doesnt mean we should allow more crap to exist...and this was all created by the same anon. --Jiang 22:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tetragrammaton

Anyone who cares will already know; to everyone else it is meaningless clutter. —Charles P.  19:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. violet/riga (t) 21:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Charles. Timbo ( t a l k ) 01:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If an article is being printed out for an orthodox Jewish friend or relative, the printer may wish to comply with these traditions out of respect. Thys, not everyone who cares will already know. On top of which is the fact that it is an interesting piece of trivia. If you find it too cluttersome at the top of articles - place it at the bottom of the article or on the talk page. --Oldak Quill 12:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    If someone has an orthodox Jewish grandparent they might well know this already, just as they might know not to serve that grandparent bacon for breakfast. (And if we're going to be sensitive to the needs of hypothetical grandparents, let us suppose that someone has a strict Christian fundamentalist grandparent. Shall every article that takes the point of view that evolution is a reality then contain a warning to avoid offending that grandparent's religious sensibilities? I could come up with many more examples.) As for "interesting trivia": link the Tetragrammaton where it appears, and mention the fact in the appropriate article. Should every article containing the word the have a template explaining interesting trivia about that word? i.e. that it's one of the most common words in English, that it contains two of the most common letters in English, and so forth. —Charles P.  14:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jan 24 (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

This can't be deleted at present due to a software flaw. Snowspinner 01:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Convert to category

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)
  • Ill use of template system. This needs to be a category and a list-of article - David Gerard 01:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If this doesn't get converted to category in another week, I'm going to just skip to the deletion part. This is absurd. Snowspinner 01:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Footer

Category: