Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RyanGerbil10 (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 11 January 2007 (All January 3 discussions closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:13, 11 January 2007 by RyanGerbil10 (talk | contribs) (All January 3 discussions closed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Header

Current discussions

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2024 December 27

January 10

Template:Obscene

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

The result of the debate was deleted by RyanGerbil10 per the consensus in {{sobscene}}'s deletion on January 7 2007. --ais523 11:36, 15 January 2007 (U T C)

Ineffective counter-vandalism template, which, IMHO, might as well scream "Don't shove beans up your nose!" (remember, they were adding obscenities on purpose just to be counterproductive). I've found it to be completely counter-productive on vandal patrol. --Patstuart 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Obscene vandalism shouldn't be rewarded by special treatment. Also if a photo was not used, the template is just giving vandals new ideas. Textbook example of WP:BEANS. WJBscribe 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ignoring the fact that obscene vandalism should be treated like other vandalism, it is an insanely bad idea to explain to a vandal how to offend the most people. -Amarkov _edits 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, also I rarely see the template in use. Arjun 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Obscenities are blatant vandalism, so use {{blatantvandal}} instead. -- Kesh 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nim -Doc 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I encounter multiple time obscene language but I don't see a use to categorise obscene stuff elsewhere than in normal vandalism. -- Esurnir 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, way too serious for vandals; more encouraging than anything. -- Renesis (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom †he Bread 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this template is crap encouraging even more crap.--C J King 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - BlatantVandal is the same as this. --Tohru Honda13 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Template:Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Redundant to Template:French overseas departments and territories. It just adds template clutter to articles when the aforementioned template is more than sufficient. --Bob 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Duplicate. Arjun 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep! Including this template content only under Template:French overseas departments and territories denies the territorial claims of Madagascar and Mauritius, which are not recognised by France, and accordingly deletion will not reflect a NPOV. Would deletion of a seperate Canada template be justified because it is already covered in a North America template?--Wuyanxin 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. All of these islands are de jure French possessions. In fact, at least according to the articles, only the Glorioso Islands even face a counterclaim (from both Madagascar and the Seychelles, but the French have colonization and establishment history dating back to before 1900). I see no reason why the template structure indicated by Grcampbell would provide a POV issue. Serpent's Choice 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. My scanning of the article did miss some of the claims. However, my original contention, that these islands are de jure French possessions, stands. While it is certainly appropriate to make note of the disputes, in each of these cases, France has the primary recognized claim. The CIA Factbook considers these as the Iles Eparses (scattered islands) collectively, and describes them as "a group of five French entities" under the charge of the "Senior Administrator of the Territory of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands (TAAF)" as of 3 Jan 2005 (in this regard, our entries are out of date). The presence of disputes with Mauritius (Tromelin) and Madagascar (the rest, including Bassas da India) are noted. Nevertheless, the US government considers them French. The International Organisation for Standardisation considers them French (they share the RE code used for Réunion). The United Nations considers them French (and assigns them a code of TF, for French Territory). The disputes here aren't really the same sort of thing as the Spratly Islands or Liancourt Rock or even the the southern Kuril Islands. Prevailing world opinion, at least at the moment, is that they are French. Serpent's Choice 07:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bread (talk • contribs)
~~Very Strong Keep~~ Comment Serpent's Choice comments and basis for deletion are inaccurate. As an example see the following quote from one of the articles "Tromelin Island was occupied by France in 1954, but it is claimed by Mauritius". And no one actually is resident on Tromelin Island! These islands clearly are just scattered islands in the Indian Ocean. To delete the template and allow the content only under the template of French overseas departments and territories is very clearly imposing the POV of the French claims over the POV of Mauritius and Madagascar. The template was established, and to delete it is most likely a violation of the NPOV principle supposedly for the only reason of reducing "template clutter". Err on the side of the fundamental NPOV principle and do not delete.Wuyanxin 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wuyanxin, you cannot vote twice. You may want to change it to Comment, as a further explanation of your vote. -- Kesh 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Comment Thank you Kesh, amendment has been made. This is clearly a fundamental NPOV issue. Further comment on how inaccurate Serpent's Choice statements' are: Of the 5 seperate articles on the 5 islands, 4 of the articles are very clear in stating that the islands are claimed by either Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles or Comoros. Therefore the only valid or reliable reason put forward to delete the template is to clear up "clutter", which most certainly should not over-ride a NPOV issue. Wuyanxin 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Wuyanxin RaveenS

Keep. Not all islands in the Indian Ocean are French territories.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

- Comment Actually, all islands within the Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean ARE French territories... Also, the Template:French overseas departments and territories actually states which islands are claimed by other nations, thus nullifying any point put forward by those voting keep. Also, the closing admin might want to look at Special:Contributions/Wuyanxin--Bob 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Grand Slam's comment brings up a point: any template of this name and title which excludes Diego Garcia and Kerguelen is at least misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Announced product

The result of the debate was delete. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This newly-created template is almost completely redundant to {{Future product}}. Per Misplaced Pages's policies on WP:NOT being a crystal ball, requiring verifiable information, and collating such information from reliable sources, there should almost never be a case where {{Future product}} would be used that isn't an announced product in some fashion. Let's avoid template creep as much as possible. -- -/- Warren 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I created this template to make a clear distinction between a "future product that may contain preliminary or speculative information, and may not reflect the final version of the product" (See {{Future product}}), and one about which all specs have been officially announced: "It may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only." (see {{announced product}}). This is not necessarily template creep, but a very useful distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: That's not much of a distinction, Jossi. Reliable sources are absolutely essential in every single Misplaced Pages article. Also, it's completely unprovable that the information won't change before release... remember last year when the Macbook Pro was to be released, and the specs changed between announcement and release? That's why the future product template reads as it is. -/- Warren 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The MacBook pro specs where not officially released at that time. Same with the iTV (now Apple TV. In the case of the iPhone, for example, there are exact specs published. That is a significant difference, Warren. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The specs of the iPhone have not yet been released. It's not known what processor it uses, for example. Also, the details may very well change before release; the FCC may require changes to the iPhone before it issues approval. - Brian Kendig 20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Deletionism is evil. CygnusPius 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - very different from {{Future product}}. Sfacets 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Very different" in what way, exactly? {{Announced product}} says that the article may only contain information from reliable sources, but this applies to all Misplaced Pages articles. {{Future product}} says that the article may contain only preliminary or speculative information which might not reflect the product's final version, but this applies to all announced/unreleased products. I would agree with you that the templates are very different if an article about a future product is allowed to contain information from unverified sources, or if an announced product can be definitely proven not to change at all before release. - 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I'd argue that this template is useful, and that {{Future product}} should be deleted (or renamed to {{Vaporware}}, except that it already exists) for the reasons you describe. Argyriou (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge to {{Future product}} or {{Vaporware}} Argyriou (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Identical in purpose to {{Future product}}. An article about a product which has been "officially announced", but is not yet shipping, by definition must "contain preliminary or speculative information and may not reflect the final version of the product" - it's a given that a product may change between announce and prduction. Plus, the wording of {{Announced product}} is unclear - if it's saying that the article is only allowed to "contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only", then it's disallowing information about popular reaction to the product or media references to it, and there's no Misplaced Pages guideline against this. - Brian Kendig 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. A week ago (before the MacWorld Expo), there would not have been a template on a page regarding the idea of an Apple-made cell phone called "future product;" and it certainly could not have been labeled as an "announced product" because it wasn't announced! A second way to look at this: How can you have any verifiable information on a product that isn't announced? —Scouter Sig 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to {{Future product}}, or delete. What little distinction exists between the two is too affirmative. Either the sources are reliable and strong enough to stand on their own, and indicate that the product will almost certainly be released, or they're not, regardless of what the template says. No other template on Misplaced Pages gives an article a stamp of approval, and I don't see a reason to start. (and a nitpick: the current text says only that the article is officially released, which isn't sufficient to pass WP:NOT a crystal ball... Barabus TKR was officially announced, but its manufacturer was unknown before the announcement, so the announcement wasn't enough to say that the future release was almost certain to take place... NOT a crystal ball is more complex than that, and the assessment can change over time (eg. the TKR's ship date passed, and the company hadn't released any press reports for several months)) --Interiot 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and other reasons above. This template, where it is not redundant to {{future product}} (or having no template at all), is nonsensical. schi 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary, Future Product covers it. Misplaced Pages says "content must be verifiable" so this is just duplication. And I don't appreciate being told that only official information is allowed. Deletionism IS evil though. --John Lunney 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, even apple itself doesn't maintain this degree of certainty in its announcements. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And Jobs has stated that the current state of the iPhone is not final. AlistairMcMillan 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per schi. It's redundant, mostly, and it's absurd where it isn't. What possible reliable sources other than the company itself can exist for an unreleased product? -Amarkov _edits 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. As others have already said, this template has no meaningful distinction from the established future product template. Any product that hasn't been announced is by definition speculation, and thus doesn't belong here per Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Thus, this template serves no purpose, and seems to have been created solely to treat the iPhone differently from every other not-yet-released product. Redxiv 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Duplicates the function of {{future product}} with no appreciable benefit or distinction. No valid argument has been made that distinguishes this from the future product template. This doesn't have a snowball's chance of standing up to scrutiny. -- Kesh 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above -Doc 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Crystal-ball distinction between two crystal-ball templates. Alai 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to {{db-spam}}. —An gr 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Neo and Paleo Ideologies

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Boxcruft. This listbox has no sensible unifying theme. The linguistic theme might have made sense had there been two boxes, one for neo- and one for paleo-, but combining the two makes this template a waste of screen space. Argyriou (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete; Hmm, it does seem like template creep to me. I'm not really too familiar with the subject matter (heh, I saw "Paleo" and I thought it had to do with palentology!), and after looking through most of the articles, which have some excellent navigational templates leading off the article, this seems superfluous. I'm interested in hearing a good counter-argument though. -/- Warren 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If it is listing neo- and paleo- ideologies, that would include, um, all of them potentially. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Could someone please explain/link "template creep?" I have not seen that phrase before today. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I use the term "template creep" as a variation of scope creep... it's the idea that we have too many templates that do similar things. I'm not a deletionist per se but I do think too many choices for templates can be overwheming for newer editors. -/- Warren 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

delete, the only unifying feature is a prefix used in the name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's pointless. —Per Hedetun (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Articles in the template have nothing to do with one another. At best it is irrelevent, but it is also likely to be misleading. — coelacan talk — 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I particularly agree with Coelacan. By listing together various ideologies that have nothing in common except a prefix in their name, this template can be highly misleading. -- Nikodemos 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Firsts in India

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this template was/is. It isn't used anywhere, has no incoming links, and is edited sporadically. Creator hasn't edited since he created it. Overall, it doesn't really seem to have a use. Picaroon 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that Dgies is interested in userfying, so the closing admin should probably move it to his userspace and delete the redirect. Picaroon 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Per the above. —Tox 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Astrotrain 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--NMajdan•talk 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This might make for a decent list article though... -/- Warren 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ibid. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, very informative though, just not a template. Arjun 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Userfy to me. I will adopt it and convert it to a list article. —Dgies 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Think you'll be able to find references for all this info? If you're interested in moving it to your userspace, turning it into a real article, and moving it into article space as a list, then I fully support your plan. Picaroon 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just planning on letting the links to articles stand as their own reference, and killing the ones that would be redlinks. Does that sound like a bad idea? —Dgies 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above If someone knows enough about it to change it into something better, we should keep it.--C J King 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

January 9

Template:Minor planet

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Depreciated template. Not used on any articles. Superceded by Template:Infobox Minor Planet. Mike Peel 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete from my view it looks completely unneeded. Arjun 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Template:Infobox Planet seems to be a relevant discussion. —Tox 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should probably have linked to that. That's a discussion about a template I'm writing now that will hopefully replace the template that replaced this template. :) Expect to see some more on this in future TfD discussions... Mike Peel 14:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do what you will. Not much point keeping it if it's not used anymore. — Nicholas (reply) @ 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Superceded ages ago. Deuar 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:EditAdvice

The result of the debate was delete for the same reason that {{civil1}} and {{civil2}} got deleted. It should have been a group nomination, there's no need to hold the same debate three times. And no, templating users to stop being incivil really doesn't help. >Radiant< 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We've already deleted civil1 and civil2 on the grounds that boilerplate is no way to successfully encourage someone to play nice. It invariably makes the situation worse. This is {{civil0}} tweeked and moved to a new location.

Basically my deletion reason is the same. This is counter-productive. If a user is overheating, a quite word may calm them down, boilerplate is more likely to inflame. If you haven't the time or the tact to write a real message, then you are not the person to intercede with the user anyway. Slapping templates on overheated users is usually simply fuel to the fire. --Doc 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - fully agree that a 'real' message is always better, however this template, which is basically an extract of WP:MASTADON is a reasonable enough start. Addhoc 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it is reasonable enough. But my question is, will it lead to more harmoniously editing than not having it, and forcing the phantom template-slappers to consider what and if they should write.--Doc 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. These templates are rarely used to inform new users of something they may not be aware of. They're most often used against good contributors as a form of "You have a demerit now!" A simple "You have one mark-down for being incivil" conveys the same message, but nobody would even think of having a template to say that. -Amarkov _edits 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I made a couple changes to the wording of the template, which I think help make it a little less confrontational. Of course, it's almost always better to write a personalized message to the editor, but if you don't speak English very well and you're dealing with a new user, I could see this template working. As for Amarkov's comment, people will find ways to accuse established editors of being uncivil regardless of whether or not such a template exists, and there are much more direct ways of saying so without crossing the line. -- Cielomobile 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
delete, it's non-confrontational to the point of being passive-aggressive. "Yeah I'm not going to say I think you're being uncivil, I'm just going to point out these guidelines *wink* *wink*" Civility notification templates, if we use them, have to be straight up honest. ("I don't think you were civil here, please try to keep these guidelines in mind.") Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I would feel more taken aback if I was a new user and someone left a directly confrontational message on my take page. This template is really meant for new users who don't quite know wiki-etiquette yet. -- Cielomobile 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Astrotrain 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - perfect example of why WP:TEMPLAR was created. -Patstuart 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's an essay, not even a guideline, much less an official policy. Plus, it just says that such templates shouldn't be used on the talk pages of experienced editors. We have templates like {{Npa3}}, which are more confrontational than this one. -- Cielomobile 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

VIA templates

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. —Phil | Talk 12:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pronunciation of Linux

The result of the debate was subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates are not supposed to be used to include article-space content. Because of how MediaWiki works, templates that include references appear out of order, which is jarring. It's only used in two article-space pages anyhow (Linux and Linux kernel), so I propose deleting this template and putting the content into those pages. -- -/- Warren 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Subst and delete. Only used in two articles, and it's not information that's subject to later change, so no point in templating it. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Subst and delete per nom. It's not like Misplaced Pages will chrash if those two articles ever get out of sync... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Subst and delete. Shouldn't be included in Linux kernel anyway. Djiann 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Subst and Delete, yes not a useful template (why is it one?) Arjun 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Replaced usage of template in Linux to standalone text - template commented out in article. Did not change Linux kernel. Jkstark 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Serbian Football Clubs

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have, and should not have, templates for all clubs in a country. This template duplicates the list, the category and league templates. --Punkmorten 11:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- I've already merged clubs from this template into the list. If anything, we should only create separate templates for the top 3 divisions in the country (Superliga,Prvaliga,Srpskaliga). // Laughing Man 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Astrotrain 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but because we generally use league templates instead of countrywide ones,not because of redundancy (or we could hardly justify {{2006 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}} and its numerous predecessors).Circeus 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, leaguewise templates and lists should handle this, not one large template. – Elisson • T • C • 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Terrorism in Kazakhstan

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Horrible template. The user who created this created tens of terrorism categories and included many unrelated groups, changed its name, moved it back again, added even Kurdistan Workers Party, the Grey Wolves etc. Then he added "Category:Terrorism in Kazakhstan" to those articles and . Also see WP:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism. Not only is this violated everywhere in the template, but it has POV, original research, non-verifiability written all over it. You name it, this template has got it. Baristarim 02:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. Baristarim 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The above user has no idea what he is talking about. Number one, I did not create "tens of terrorism categories." I created seven categories. Terrorism in Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Central Asia, and China. This is per the preexisting Terrorism in country categories that exist for Pakistan (Category:Terrorism in Pakistan), Russia (Category:Terrorism in Russia), India (Category:Terrorism in India), and many others, none of which I created. The Kazakh Government banned the KWP and GW as 'terrorist organizations operating in Kazakhstan' last year. I never chanegd the categories names, and I reverted Baristarim's edits to two pages one time each. It is not POV, these are internationally recognized terrorist organizations. If you have a problem with them being called terrorist organizations then I suggest you take it up on the article talkpages. This is obviously not POV or OR since, if you actually look at Terrorism in Kazakhstan, I have sourced the Supreme Court's recognition of them as terrorist organizations. KazakhPol 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This user then warned me about violating WP:3RR, after one reversion. User seems unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's basic policies. KazakhPol 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Focus on content. I know what 3RR is and I gave you a warning only because I had the feeling that you would go all the way to three reverts from your tone. You did your second revert only a couple of minutes after the first one and the warning. That's all. I have no problem with any organization being labelled terrorist, that's not the problem. This is the TfD for the template, not the RfC for one of the groups. See Misplaced Pages words to avoid-terrorism. Saying "X is a terrorist group" is not encyclopedic, the correct format is "X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list." You are also including categories to groups unrelated to Kazakhstan. "Argument from authority" (such as the Supreme court of Kazakhstan) doesn't change Misplaced Pages rules. It can be mentioned as "X has been listed as a terrorist organization by Y". It doesn't warrant "X is a terrorist organization". And other articles are of no concern either, this TfD is only about this template. This template breaks every guideline that concerns it. Baristarim 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the numerous preexisting categories on "terrorism in X country." I suggest you take a look at all the subcategories in Category:Terrorism by country. KazakhPol 03:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I didn't CfD the categories :)) This is about the template. Stick to the topic please. Baristarim 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall. Terrorism in X country is the topic. Since this is all sourced, and uses official terminology, this can neither be seen as POV nor OR. KazakhPol 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Official terminology of whom, precisely? That of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan? That is not grounds for the inclusion of the "Category:Terrorism in Kazakhstan" to Kurdistan Worker's Party or Grey Wolves. I have no problem with none of the groups, Grey Wolves are a pan-Turkist organization and the other one is just the opposite. I reverted both additions. The template is even worse. "Terrorist organizations", "Terrorist leaders", "Three evils"? What three evils? According to whom and how? The template fails gravely basic guidelines, but what is really funny is the inclusion of completely irrelevant groups in this template. Since when has the Kurdistan Workers Party or the Grey Wolves done something in Kazakhstan? Baristarim 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Grey Wolves and the PKK are recognized as terrorist organizations in Kazakhstan. They have financial and arms ties to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which operates throughout Central Asia. The Three evils is an internationally used term. the fact that you are unfamilar with this term only shows how much you know about terrorism in Asia. These groups are not irrelevant. This TFD is irrelevant. It's a waste of my time, as are all of your edits of the moment, KazakhPol 04:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

TfDs are always relevant, they are part of the wikiprocess, which is fundamental to Misplaced Pages. PKK is a Maxist-Leninist organization, by the way. I don't see them hanging out with Al-Qaeda types :) That's the point, this whole template is so confused, and the only source is the rulings of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, and that only covers part of the template. I am sorry but, for Misplaced Pages, the Wiki rules are what is important and they are pretty clear. As I said, it has OR, POV, WP:V issues written all over it. And please do not make this personal, focus on content.Baristarim 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Fundamental POV issues. Contravenes virtually every rule in the book. It is as though WP:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism never happened. No attribution at all on the template which also fails basic WP:ATT guidleines etc etc. --Zleitzen 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong and speedy keep none of the above claims are even remotely true. If you look at Terrorism in Kazakhstan you will see all of the organizations in question are banned in Kazakhstan as terrorist organizations. I began changing this into a Template:Terrorism in Central Asia thing today, but that ran into a roadblock, this TFD. KazakhPol 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You have all kinds of people labelled terrorists with no attribution at all. Ilkham Turdbyavich Batayev is on your template as a "terrorist leader/captive" with no justification other than he was captured by US forces, placed in Gitmo and then released without charge. Even if they were described as terrorists attributed to some government or group, it still contravenes NPOV. For obvious reasons. It labels groups and individuals in a POV fashion that only shows one side of the story.--Zleitzen 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would prefer "suspected," I have no problem with that. I was actually thinking of removing the Gitmo detainees due to non-notability. If you are taking issue with the POV of listing them under Terrorism in Kazakhstan then you should be adding the POV template, not advocating deletion. KazakhPol 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am taking issue with all the entries on the template due to OR, POV, WP:V issues and was using the GITMO case as an example. See the second part of my last comments : "Even if they were described as terrorists attributed to some government or group, it still contravenes NPOV. For obvious reasons." If we take out all the individuals and groups on this template, there is little left.--Zleitzen 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

These people are internationally recognized as terrorists and these organizations are internationally recognized as engaging in terrorist activities. These aren't exactly Hizbullah or Hamas. It sounds like you are suggesting this template be deleted on the grounds that terrorism is an inherently pov term, which seems to ignore the fact that it is the terminology that is used. "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" comes to mind. KazakhPol 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to "Alleged terrorism in Central Asia", or some such. It must be renamed, but I don't think deletion is needed. -Amarkov _edits 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh... please do not turn this into Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Muhammad al-Durrah. We have enough Misplaced Pages pages of such low quality. KazakhPol 05:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - And... why would POV warring be affected by the name? POV warring happens no matter what something is named. -Amarkov _edits 05:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    - No I mean about the use of "Allegations" in the title. Sources in the real world never refer to it as "allegations" but Misplaced Pages does in an effort to be politically correct. If the alleged allegations are questionable then that should be established in the article, or in this case the template, and not in the title. It's an issue of show versus tell. KazakhPol 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Oh, I see what you mean. The title didn't quite let me make the connection. It really does need to be renamed to "Middle East" or "Central Asia" or something, just Kazakhstan is weird. -Amarkov _edits 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        The thing is I was trying to rework this today when Baristarim interrupted me. The template is too big and clunky to remain in its current shape. Thanks, KazakhPol 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why cant this be covered under ] a category of Terrorism in Kazahkstan ?RaveenS 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was trying to change this is into a more general template on Terrorism in Central Asia when Baristarim listed this for TFD. As of now this can basically be covered with that category. KazakhPol 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Meaning "category" - not a template Wiki-speak. Not the meaning of "category" in general usage. If this template is going to be kept, it should be moved to "Militancy in Central Asia" or something. Baristarim 12:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete we should never be calling anything terrorist. It is inherently POV -Doc 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, with revisions I think the POV issues can be overcome through use of "alleged", etc. See List of terrorist organisations for a NPOV way of discussing groups accused of terrorism. At it's core, this template can be a good unifying navigational device for the various articles dealing with terrorism in Central Asia. Crocodile Punter 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you'd want it renamed to Template:Alleged Terrorism in Kazakhstan?--Doc 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He never said that and to infer that he meant this is inappropriate. KazakhPol 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Astrotrain 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Navigational templates are supposed to aid in navigation between related subjects. This template is pretty scattershot, and can't reasonably be included in all the articles it lists. People not familiar with how this kind of template should be done are encouraged to read Misplaced Pages:Navigational templates. -/- Warren 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Rename There is WP:RS sources for Terrorism in Central Asia. it is WP:N As long as individual articles listed under the template are written with WP:NPOV the template should stay I am also partial to renaming it militancy in Central asia or Political violence in Central AsiaUser:RaveenS 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The rename is not happening. The article/s only discuss those which are banned as "terrorist organizations." KazakhPol 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I no longer need this. This was a bad idea, not due to any supposed pov or OR issues, but because it is too clunky. It works much better as more specific, smaller templates. KazakhPol 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

January 8

Template:Pokefair

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is used just to write image rationale on pages, and is subst for that purpose. My comment is, shouldn't people actually be writing relevant rationale for the image as applicable, rather than relying on a template to do it for them? Do other Wikiprojects or general Misplaced Pages use a template for image rationale? - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

as a matter of fact yes, WP:CVG uses {{game-cover}}, {{game-icon}}, {{game-logo}}, and {{game-screenshot}}. If you want non-game related templates you can take a look at these. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are boilerplates to define them AS fair-use images. They can't work without rationale. - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

- keep, fair enough Tesuya-san. However I still think that in this case it is perfectly suitable to use a template to help speed along the process of rationalizing the individual species images, how many were released in D/P? As Night Gyr stated the piint of rational is the "individual consideration" given to each image. However all the 493 little images that adorn each species page are going to have the same rationale. Using a template for these images at least is justifiable due to quantity and similarity. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 16:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. While it's a little hard to endorse templating this, I don't see why this would be different from something just written out. -Amarkov _edits 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pagify, having a sample rationale for the wikiproject is alright, but people thinking they can get away with dumping a template on an image page and being done with it it without individual consideration goes against the whole point of a rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, the nomination for deletion intends to help make this most distinct. - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. There's a clear difference between templated licenses for images and templated fair-use justifications. This is only going to cause problems down the road if it gets any visibility, encouraging people that its "close enough" to use rather than actually putting the required assessment of circumstances into the justification. As proof, I suggest that this TFD be expanded to include the following two templates, which already transclude this one as their built-in justification. One "only" seems to encourage improper fair use, the other is also for wildly differing content. No idea at the moment what else might subst: this.
- Template:Pli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Khfair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Serpent's Choice 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The instructions for using Pli, in particular, are incompatible with proper fair use. Serpent's Choice 10:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fair-use rationale must be explicitly and intentionally defined for each image. Allowing contributors to bypass this process by applying a template is not a good idea. -/- Warren 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The template is being used to provide a fair use rationale for images that would all have basically the same fair use rationale. How would the fair usage of Image:ScreenshotPokemonEpi1.gif and Image:Pikachu.png be any different?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Timeline of the burrito

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to continuing expansion, template doesn't work as a graphical timeline. Moving to article Timeline of the Burrito. --—Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, procedural. This does make me wonder if we should be using single-axis timelines at all, when simple prose or HTML tables will suffice... I'd like to think the encyclopedia could retain full accessibility and usability without images. -/- Warren 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the nominator is correct, this hardly seems template worthy. Arjun 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the graphic; Keep the text. Burritos are very, very notable. And the history of the burrito is so hard to come across in so many places that this is an excellent resource. .V. (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tunefind

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam template for non-notable website, possible COI as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Obviously I have bias as I created the template. However, TuneFind is the only site with a user generated music index. It usually lists the music well in advance of it appearing on any 'official' sites and additionally lists music for shows without official indices. Prior to generating the template, most of the shows already had links but without any consistent formatting or text. A user - Vinjx - created a Misplaced Pages account on 2 January 2007 in order to remove all of the links that had been added over the previous 1+ year. Another user reversed that malicious deletion and then MatthewFenton removed the links again and proposed the template for deletion. Obviously I love the site and have, at times, been overzealous (adding links on artist pages) in the past - I suspect why MatthewFenton suspects COI. Finally, the templates does not meet any of the four criteria for deletion (aside from not being used after MatthewFenton deleted all instances). Ghouse 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Linkspam templates should rarely be used, and never for sites which are not notable in their own right. -Amarkov _edits 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:BoNM-PRC

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Author nom; considered POV by relevant wikiproject. --Ling.Nut 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's a barnstar, it doesn't have to be NPOV. -Amarkov _edits 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unused, no sign that anyone is interested in using it. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep yes it is a barnstar, it could be awarded to anyone at anytime, it brightens up our encyclopedia, very useful.--Rasillon 19:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bias Warning

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many existing templates for expressing that an article is considered biased, incomplete, etc. These templates, when added to an article, are generally kept in place, even if an edit war is taking place. As such, the kind of articles tagged with this are likely to have an NPOV dispute tag already, and if they do not, the fact that a past conflict has subsided or has been resolved is no indication of bias in the article. In other words, this contributes to needless template inflation -- to additional box-stacking by people who would like to express in as many different ways as possible that an article is "bad" -- and unfairly labels articles because of past activities that have taken place on them. A single troll can now get a perfectly fine article labeled with a "bias warning" simply by edit warring over it. The template should be deleted, especially since its creator insists that it be added to the main article space.--Eloquence * 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not useful since it doesn't identify a resolvable problem. All of our articles may contain incorrect or biased information. It's not clear that the problem is any worse in articles that are the subject of edit wars. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that something is subject to abuse (which applies to virtually everything on Misplaced Pages) is not a reason for eliminating it. And identifying resolvable problems is only useful for editors. There are some articles that will probably never be resolved and will go on being the subject of chronic and recurring edit wars for the foreseeable future. The problem with all of the current templates, and indeed the mindset of virtually everyone who contributes to Misplaced Pages (including the people who have commented above), is that everyone focuses only on the editors and the editorial process. This template may not be useful for editors, but it is very useful to readers. There is nothing else out there that tells the casual reader, who strolls through to get some information on a subject but has never even edited an article, that the information they are reading is about a controversial subject and may contain incorrect or biased information at any given point in time, and that they should check the talk page for more information. Point me to where that template is right now, and I will agree to delete this one.-Jefu 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- That page is at Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer, and is linked from every page on the site. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That is a general CYA disclaimer and contains nothing but information that should already be obvious. Where does it point out that an article is particularly controversial, subject to frequent edit wars and that the talk page should be checked?-Jefu 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    - It's not clear to me that being the subject of frequent edit wars makes an article more likely to be biased or inaccurate. In fact, I think, rather the opposite. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Other boxes that warn about potential NPOV issues address the content, not the actions of the contributors. It is a fine distinction, but an important one. Let better templates serve the purpose this one would aspire to. Serpent's Choice 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The existing {{NPOV}} works fine. -Amarkov _edits 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- That addresses neutrality, not accuracy.-Jefu 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  - {{Totally-disputed}}, then. Or {{Controversial}}, depending on what the issue is. Serpent's Choice 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    - {{Totally-disputed}} would indeed be my next choice, but it sounds more like a complaint about a specific issue that is intended to be deleted if and when that issue is resolved, rather than a general warning to the reader about the nature of an article. And I do not think that is a trivial distinction at all. {{Controversial}} does not work at all. It is clearly meant for the talk page and thus would not serve as a warning to the reader at all.-Jefu 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      - My issue with this template is that it seems to imply "The article contributors are being bad", which is unnecessary, however true it may be. -Amarkov _edits 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Del per avbove †he Bread 06:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. John Smith's 11:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, especially Christopher. There are other templates that do a better job of addressing an article's problems. -- Kicking222 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete in lieu of better alternative templates. TonyTheTiger 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
delete there are many better templates and this one is just not needed. — Arjun 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete with what everyone else said. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 07:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant with the standard NPOV template (as well as being a template which disturbs the reader). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, redundant template. -/- Warren 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, for the same reasons as Jefu. I interpret the NPOV tag as something that is used to challenge specific claims, whereas the current template would be a warning about articles which are prone to be perfectly NPOV one moment, and be edited to a substantially different non-NPOV version the next moment. FilipeS 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- This could happen to any article, should the template go on any article not currently protected? Users should be able to interpret the disclaimer well enough to understand someone may add bias to an article. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Jefu and Filipe as well as the fact that there is known history of pages being taken over by edit wars making it impossible for the person who trying to get a NPOV come away with erroneuous information ForrestLane42 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Strong Delete. There are numerous reasons why this template shouldn't exist. First, a reader reading Misplaced Pages should understand the risks of viewing an encyclopedia edited by the people, as Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer says. Second, putting this template on every page that's had an edit war, such as Japan, is uncalled for. If anything, articles that have had disputes are more accurate (oprhaned pagesa are more susceptible to POV). Third, this template is instruction creep. Fourth, who is to say what is controversial? Japan isn't, and it doesn't need a pastel box (I know this template has no color, don't respond) to scare off readers. All articles can be edited to a substantially POV version at any moment, we don't need warnings for pages a handful of editors think are "controversial". I end quoting this famous TFD: "If we have a medical disclaimer on all medical-related articles, we might as well put a legal advice disclaimer on all law-related articles...but that means that we should also put a general disclaimer on all articles, which is the whole purpose of having the disclaimers all in one place. The only disclaimer on wikipedia should be the spoiler warnings, because you don't know where they are, and they ruin things for you."-Frazzydeel. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 06:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

January 7

User:Miller17CU94/Userboxes/User PCD

The result of the debate was Deleted by admin Doc glasgow (author's request). Non-admin closure of orphaned TFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Another userbox with The Pussycat Dolls already created. Merged information of personal userbox with already existing userbox. Requested by author. Chris 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - requested by author. Chris 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Arsenal

The result of the debate was Deleted by admin Kusma (content was: '{{db-authora|WP:TFD}}{{tfd|Arsenal}}{{Userbox |border-c =red |border-s = 1 |id-c = white |id-s = 12 |id-fc = red |info-c = ...'). Non-admin closure of orphaned TFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Poorly named userbox template, duplicates an existing userbox {{User:BlueSquadronRaven/Userboxes/Arsenal}} and misuses a fair use image. Delete. Qwghlm 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Already exists in the userspace. --- RockMFR 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MSJapan 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I created it because I didn't realise there was one already available! Asics 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Created by mistake and the author requests deletion. Tagged {{db-authora}}. --ais523 09:48, 11 January 2007 (U T C)

Template:CMUArtsPittsburgh

The result of the debate was deletion as redundant to category. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While a list of alumni of Carnegie Mellon is certainly appropriate, i think having a templated list of artists connected to it is stretching it. Really, there is already a category for CMU alumni, and a page, so this template is redundant. Thethinredline 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical coordinate templates

The result of the debate was deletion of all but EqCoor templates. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the templates above were created by Friendlystar (talk · contribs) at the end of November 2006. They are not used in any article pages; instead, Template:RA and Template:DEC are used. Their functionality is similar to the Template:Coor dms and related templates, however this one points directly to an external site (WikiSky.org) rather than an internal one. A discussion at WikiProject Astronomical objects decided against using these templates, and Friendlystar has made no subsequent edits to the templates, or used them on articles. While I believe that the idea behind the templates is worthy, and a system such as coor dms etc. for astronomical objects would be useful to users, I do not believe that this is the correct way to do it. (The template should link to a Wikimedia-hosted disambig link that lets users choose which website they want to use, rather than directly to an external site). As such, I think that these templates should be deleted. Mike Peel 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added Template:Galaxy demo as well, as this is a fork of Template:Galaxy that was intended to demonstrate the AstroCoord template. Mike Peel 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The templates are not being used nor are they being actively maintained or edited. Also, based on previous discussions with the crator, I have the sense that some of these templates were "drafts" that he intended to delete later. Dr. Submillimeter 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep – I have put request to host the page similar to geohack on Wikimedia back in November 2006. There's no response yet, Admin seems to be very busy recovering data from some serious power/hardware failure in beginning of December. friendlystar 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If we can get something like that up and running, then that would be great. However, I still think the above templates should be deleted. First, there is no guarantee that such a system will be set up. Second, if it is set up, then we won't need both sets of templates (and we definitely won't need the galaxy demo page). Third, it would probably be easier just to fork Template:Coor and related templates when necessary, as opposed to modifying the nominated templates to work with the new system. Mike Peel 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to use EqCoor* templates, the rest is safe to delete. friendlystar 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that, so long as a warning is placed on the EqCoor templates saying that they are not currently in use, and that Template:RA and Template:DEC should be used instead. We can then migrate over to the EqCoor templates once the geohack-like system is set up. Mike Peel

Template:User serial comma:Usually

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Twas Now/Userbox/serial comma:usually in December 2006. This template is

redundant to another better-designed template
not used

I checked the back logs AND the 11 pages which returned on this Google search (ommitted results included). All of the resulting pages linked to the new template.

Twas Now 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RfD it. --Farix (Talk) 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- After reading the RfD criteria, it seems like it's not important whether it is deleted or not. − Twas Now 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:FC Copenhagen

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is copyright violation of the image and is not necessary, as it is only used on one page. ka la ha 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Weather 2

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is a spin-off of Template:Infobox Weather. A single line option was added to the Infobox Weather to give more visual options. Therefore, this template is completely unnecessary. --MJCdetroit 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cvg-workshop-nomination

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated for some time now. Has no incoming links except from a part of WP:CV that has been tagged as historical. ^demon 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as deprecated. --- RockMFR 06:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sobscene

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This template seems to imply that Misplaced Pages is censored- it is not. If someone is vandalizing, the normal vandal templates should be used. The use of profanity when vandalizing does not matter. --- RockMFR 02:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This implies that obscene vandalism is treated differently than equally egregious(sp?), but non-obscene, vandalism. It isn't. -Amarkov _edits 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and especially Amarkov. --Hab baH 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Other templates serve the purpose better.--C J King 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant and also adds a concern about WP:BEANS ("whoa, adding provocative pictures? I never thought of THAT!"). I see no need for a separate obscenity warning template. delldot | talk 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
delete per nom even more this template opens up a platform for politically correct, christian moralistic abuse Arnoutf 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Amarkov -- Esurnir 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there is also {{Obscene}}. 68.39.174.238 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Civil2

The result of the debate was delete just like civil1. If people are incivil, throwing templates around is not going to help. >Radiant< 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is similar to the recently deleted {{civil1}}. When someone is edit warring or being uncivil, throwing a warning on their talk page cannot possibly make the situation better. If kept, highly recommend replacing the stop sign with a smiley face :) ----- RockMFR 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, TfD for Template:civil1, and fact that this is worded in a very inflammatory way for a level 2 warning. -Amarkov _edits 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep - I find this useful when a civil0 won't do. --Hab baH 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Rename to level 3 per SYCTHOS below. --Hab baH 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Although I've never used this, I'm reluctant to delete it. But I know it won't stay. Xiner (talk, email) 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for new editors template:civil0 is probably enough, experienced editors may learn more from a personal message or won't learn at all. Arnoutf 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This template provides a civil way for an offended user to make their feelings known when an uncivil user repeatedly offends - especially if it is a personal, racial or religious attack. If it didn't exist, the offended user might also resort to being uncivil and escalate the conflict. I also suggest keeping the stop sign; add the smiley to Template:civil0 -- Aylahs 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete The object of rebuking someone for incivility is to calm them down; so speak nicely but firmly. Boilerplate is never going to do anything other than inflame the situation, and the temptation will always be to use it as a weapon in a personal dispute. If you can't even be bothered writing a real message, then you are certainly NOT the person who is going to successfully steer the offender in the right path. This things isn't going to enhance civility on wikipedia, is it? --Doc 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete throwing warning templates on an experienced user's talk page would only heighten the situation. -- Selmo 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename, as this can become an effective template if used correctly. However, a level 2 template with this type of wording may be too rough. Renaming this to level 3 or level 4 may be more appropriate. --SYCTHOS 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I just used civil3, which apparently has been proposed for deletion too. And I used it quite well. They're useful. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I just looked and Civil3 and Civil4 both currently redirect to Civil2. So deleting this will also have the effect of deleting those. --Hab baH 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant Delete - there is a problem with trolls using this to escalate a dispute. The threshold for usage is too low, at least with the NPA warnings, a meaningful personal attack should have taken place, however I've seen this template used in response to minor grumpiness. The template can and has been used responsibly, however at the moment, I honestly don't believe it's helping. Addhoc 22:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Everybody already knows that it's nice to be nice. If an editor is uncivil, they need constructive engagement to persuade them to take a different approach. An instruction to be nice is likely to be counterproductive. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I have recently had this thrown in my face, not by a person who wished to help, but by an arrogant fool who used it more like bait. Mind you, I consider him a tag noob, appearently he knows how to USE the tags, but he doesn't know WHEN to use them. Upon addressing him, he paints this in my face... This isn't the type of tag you want people to beable to dish out, the welcome to wikipedia is more prudent and nicer than being yelled at by some tag saying that you aren't nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.241.212 (talk • contribs)
- Um... you aren't nice. You were just blocked not that long ago. -Amarkov _edits 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Its useful - • The Giant Puffin • 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

January 6

Template:Magicnums

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

The result of the debate was delete —Mets501 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

None of these numbers are notable; all have been recently redirected to Magic number (programming)#Magic debug values. Navigation template not needed if there is only one page to which one can navigate. Gracenotes § 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, navigation templates which have one article are useless, and a bunch of pages redirecting to one article is the same. -Amarkov _edits 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Amarkov. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Template:Bite

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

The result of the debate was CSD G7. I get the idea, folks - though a warning of this TfD would have been nice. crz crztalk 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary hampering on new page patrollers. This template harms Misplaced Pages as it only helps increase the pages for speedy deletion backlog. Cowman109 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete No need to make CSD more m:Instruction creep than it is now. If it's crap, it goes. That's what speedy deletion is about. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete If you are going to rebuke an established user DO NOT USE BOILERPLATE. It is patronising and inflammatory. Either take the time to write a message, or don't bother!--Doc 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete obnoxous and judgemental template, if people want users who come here just to create vanispamcruft to be welcomed warmly they can do it I guess, but I'm not going to. I'll stick to maintaining the quality of the project, which sometimes means deleting new articles. If someone wants to discuss this with me, a boilerplate template is about the absolute worst way to start the conversation. --W.marsh 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars, we shouldn't ABF and just stick a warning template on someone's talk page. If anything, a note should be personalized, asking someone to wait a bit, otherwise we're violating WP:BITE on the NP patrollers, defeating the purpose of the template altogether. --Rory096 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Regardless of the fact that boilerplate is really really annoying for established users to get, this is based on the questionable, at best, assertion that tagging an article for speedy deletion right after it is created is necessarily a case of WP:BITE, or even that doing such a thing is bad. -Amarkov _edits 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:State terrorism in Sri Lanka

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

The result of the debate was deletion, and to be replaced with Template:Sri Lankan Conflict. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to the closing administrator: There is possible vote staking using multiple sockpuppets by User:Harlowraman and User:Rajsingam. So please reconsider about the votes that produce by User:Kandyboy and User:DoDoBirds. According to the Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser I have to a wait until vote closes before to the listing to the checkuser. Evidence will be produced on request of administrators. --User:Lahiru_k

No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism". There simply are no citations given in these articles as such. While I'm not disputing whether or not the incidents took place, categorizing them as "State terrorism" is the POV of individual Misplaced Pages editors and that makes this template a clear violation of a number of Misplaced Pages policies including WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially WP:OR which states

Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source... Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. (unpublished meaning not published by a RS).

As per these policies, Misplaced Pages editors cannot arbitrarily decide to call these incidents "State terrorism" and create such a template, and therefore it should be deleted.--snowolfD4 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep There is no rule of law in Sri Lanka like other countries like UK ,Turkey,USA,India, etc atleast in there own countries.All killing are extra judical.In Sri Lanka over 65000 people have ben killed unlike other countries neither soliders or government backed thugs ,paramilitary,JVP ,LTTE none of them have been tried in a court of law and sentenced in less 0.0001% cases.This is what I consider state terrorism.Now Look Col Karuna was the independent head of the East and carried operations against Sri Lanka and was responsible for killing the East.Now Sri Lankan government should either offer an amnesty to Karunaif it wants to use him or arrest him and try him in a court of law.

Karuna was the head of the LTTE in the East and if Sri Lankan's government accusations of massacres in the East are taken as 100% true .Karuna was the person who carried it out and he acted independently in several times.Kallarawa massacre

Gonagala massacretook place when Karuna was the head of these attacks if they carried in the East surely he had knowledge of them.Both the Sri Lankan Government before Karuna left the LTTE and the Tamils after he left the LTTE consider him a Terrorist by there own definitions surely if anyone is he is .The only person both agree.But allowing him to move with arms carry out kidnapping,killing from government areas including MPs is shocking surely he should if one lived in a lawful state atleast be called for a enquiry by the Police.Harlowraman 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, but all those happened during the time that he was align with the LTTE. I'm not trying to justify him, but as per my knowledge, in military or any other organisations the commands flow from Top to Bottom. Karuna was the terrorist commander in charge of the eastern province, and he received his orders from his Head Quarters somewhere in the Nothern Province which was headed by the one responsible for all these crimes, Velupillai Prabhakaran. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Rename (People Lets Compromise ) No respected agaency has deemed the actions of the Sri Lankan government to be of terrorism. There is a blurry line as to who decides it, but it is plain fact that no Misplaced Pages editor has that power. With power comes responsibility. Be Bold, but use that with responsibility. Do not create absurd topics arbitrarily. But unlike our politicians let us resolve this through dialog Dasiths 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- - I am willing to compromise, how to we get ahead any suggestions for a rename or a restruture of this template ? RaveenS 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This template was nominated few months agao and a massive sock puppetry was uncovered because of it. Closing admin should see all the arguments. This is a case of WP:POINT. More to come. Thanks RaveenS
- - No independent organization such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, or national government has ever accused Sri Lanka of "State terrorism"." is patently false .Independent Organizations and experts have regularly called Sri Lankan government actions "state terrorism," here are some links, including Asian Human Rights Comission, (three of them from a BBC documentary with experts who label Sri Lankan government actions as state terrorism) ,,,,,. In effect wikipedia articles can be written in an WP:NPOV about State terrorism using WP:RS. This is a template that links related actions by state actors in Sri Lanka much like a list but more.Whether linked articles should stay or go is caled editing, no need to delete it. Thanks RaveenS

Delete terrorism is a loaded POV term. --Doc 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry this is about the template not about Terrorism. If your argument is about terrorism as a term then it should be addressed at the correct XFD. Thanks RaveenS 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, just to balance the random accusation of WP:POINT. And, of course, the fact that "State terrorism" is an extremely biased term, which should never ever be used in describing specific events. -Amarkov _edits 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Terrorism along with State terrorism are nuetral terms just like Genocide and Holocaust. Again we are here citing from credible sources per WP:RS if a WP:RS or sources say an event is State terrorism then what policy in Misplaced Pages prevents an editor from writing about it ? Thanks RaveenS 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That's incoherent. A reliable source can still be POV. I'm guessing that the goverment of Sri Lanka would have a different POV. We can record that 'according to x, this is terrorism' but we can't declare that it is. That;s never neutral. Can I create 'State terrorism in India/Pakistan/USA'? I bet I can find reliable sources that would call some of their official acts 'terrorist'--Doc 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Again This is about a template not about State terrorism further WP:NPOV alone cannot be used to make deletions in XFD.RaveenS 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Oh Raveen you made that mistake again. Theres a problem regrading WP:RS in your template. You should read the Iwazaki's argument. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep as per RaveenS. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Would either of you care to explain why this is WP:POINT? Or how the fact that there was massive sockpuppetry is relevant at all? -Amarkov _edits 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Because the above nominator has an edit history that shows he is against most the of the articles linked by the template. More with evidence later RaveenS 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    - When? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this template is irreversably POV, as it looks at the whole Tamil-Sinhalese conflict from only one side. Also see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Khoikhoi 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again POV alone us not a strong reason to delete content from wikipedia. May be you can improve the templateRaveenS 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per RaveenS --Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Argh. Let's assume the nominator is indeed doing this WP:POINTedly. Even then, you have 3 people saying to delete it who are NOT making a WP:POINT, so you really can't just keep it per WP:POINT. -Amarkov _edits 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sri Lankan government's poor human rights record needs to be highlighted.59.144.31.185 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete The whole template is WP:HOAX and WP:POV..Misplaced Pages has been used for cheap LTTE propaganda and the incidents mentioned in the template fully confirmed this.Lets takethis as an example..A Tamil girl was raped by some Army soldiers and the Government filed a court case and sentenced them to death..But the editor still calls this "state terrorism" !! Isn't it obvious the editors hidden desire to defame the Government of Sri Lanka no matter what good they do ?? --Iwazaki 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep Sri Lankan government has done nothing since 1983 to improve its record it has worsened in recent times220.226.140.53 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete: This template contains potentially libellous and unsubstantiated allegations against a sovereign government which violates wikipedia's NPOV. This template is currently being abused as a banner advertisement which can be pasted on pages regarding sri lanka so that the government can be defamed by pro-eelam and LTTE supporters around the world. For example take the following links in the template,

Taraki_Sivaram - His murder is still unsolved, and there is no proof to substantiate that he was killed by the government. The LTTE itself is accused to have been behind the murder.

Chandra_Fernando - Again it is stated in the article "He was killed by unknown gunmen in June of 1988 in his own church". If he was killed by unknown gunmen, how on earth can this be a link for state terrorism in sri lanka? There is so much controversy regarding his death which can be verified by reading the controversy section.

N._Raviraj - the LTTE is accused of the murder, and there is no evidence to suggest a government hand in his killing. Again there is much controversy regarding the perpatrator of the killing.

All the above allegations of state terrorism are examples of original research, are completely unsubstantiated and should be deleted.

As such I wish to state as per the above examples, that this template contains completely unsubstantiated and libellous allegations against a sovereign government, and that the template is being used as a banner advertisement which can be pasted over as many pages to try to defame the government of Sri lanka. Letting this template survive would create many conflicts as to what exactly to put in it, and who decides what exactly constitutes state terrorism etc, and it should be speedily deleted as it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR amongst others.Kerr avon 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep Sinhala army has a poor record and its crimes are encouraged by the Sri Lankan state.This is state sponsored Terrorism Erodeguy 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Possible Single purpose account — Erodeguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Kerr avon 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep The template is an excellent model for other pages dealing with similar issues to emulate.Inclusion or exclusion of material should be taken on a case-by-case basis.After a cursory, random examination of several of the pages, i would say that most of the material is strongly backed up by neutral, reliable sources like Amnesty International and other human rights groups.Some material, however, should be removed;for instance, the Krishanti Kumaraswamy case is clearly not classifiable as "State Terrorism", and has no place in the template.Most of the instances, however, are clear instances of state terrorism.Those people here protesting the page's existence are clearly pushing a particular point of view based on political disputes rather than Academic rejection, and their opinions should therefore be marginalized as inappropriate for Wiki consideration.Stone put to sky 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY Dear stone, Its not only Krishanti Kumaraswamy, all the rapes mentioned in the template can easily be categorised as WP:HOAX.Look atthis..Not a single citation is given but editor still have it in this template..Clear indication of his WP:POV,isn't it ? When a soldier committed a rape, how can we categorize it as a "State Terrorism" ?? There was an incident here in Japan ,where an US marine rapped a girl from Okinawa. Can some one call this a "State Terrorism of The USA" ?? If a Chinese soldier commit such a crime ,can you categorize it as "State Terrorism"?? The desire of the editor is quite obvious..When ever a rape happen in SL he's going to have it in Misplaced Pages under the "State Terrorism".Can you make any sense out of this ?

Also, None of the Organizations you mentioned above ,say State Terrorism exist in Sri Lanka.Not a single nation, including the USA and the UN ,say "State Terrorism" exist in Sri Lanka..So academically I think this whole thing is WP:HOAX and borne due to the extreme dislike the editor had towards the Sri Lankan and Its people.

There are human right violations, esp when you have a brutal Terrorist Organization like LTTE , Some of the counter actions by the Government may have caused civilian deaths..During the war, Air force may missed targets and kill innocent people accidentally ,Is this "Terrorism"?? And if the LTTE is using Human Shields , and civilian die due to this, how can we blame the State ?

I would appreciate if you can take a look at what user Kerr avon wrote above.He had pointed out many incident,which may have had LTTE hand in it, but still ended up in this template which shows the true desire/nature of the creator of this.

Also, please remember ,most the cited sources are far from being neutral..There are sites such as "Tamil Nation" ,"Tamil NET","Sangam " ,"Tamil Canadian"etc..These are extremely PRO LTTE sites !!

The whole template can be easily rejected for its failure to keep the Academic Standard of Misplaced Pages..Thanks--Iwazaki 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete As I have argued many times before with the keepers of this flame: colleagues RaveenS, Travb and Stone, this is not the way to present contested material. It renders events in an inherently POV fashion by its title and linking of material. Leading to a constant battle. There is a perfectly acceptable and peaceful way to present such material so that it adheres to WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NOR. Far more controversial material than this has remained rightly untouched and undeleted before, because it was created within policy. This isn't within policy. At best, the inference of guilt is tacit, at worst it is shoved down our throats without any counterpoint or attribution. --Zleitzen 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- - Again as requested countless number of time assume good faith WP:AGF and no personal attacks WP:NPA keep discussion to the template not to editors. ThanksRaveenS
    - Good grief. How on earth is the above a personal attack RaveenS? --Zleitzen 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Because Misplaced Pages editing is not about editors, it is about the artcles. Make your case againsts the template not about editors. There are other avenues for it not an XFD. Thanks RaveenS 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep After a random examination of several of the pages, I also have the same opinion that most of the material are strongly backed up by neutral, reliable sources like Amnesty International and other human rights groups. DoDoBirds 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Possible Single purpose account or sock puppet - user:DoDoBirds, contribs, has made few contributions to wikipedia and his account appears to be used primarily for voting in AFD's and TFD's.Kerr avon 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete: Per nomination, Iwazaki, Kerr avon. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 15:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Rename~~ Changed to weak keep per rename - "Alleged State Terrorism" or something. The LAnkans call the LTTE's actions terrorism/militancy and the LTTE calls the lankans actions "state terrorism". Things like Black July definitely belong though.Baka man 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- - So if renamed you will vote to keep ? RaveenS 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    - It was sensibly renamed "allegations" after the last tfd fiasco. This was changed by someone. That someone was you, RaveenS.
    1. Almost none of these acts have been labelled state terrorism by any notable source. Certainly not by Amnesty who never use the term in their reports, despite what an editor writes above.
    2. Even if some group did describe them as "State terrorism", that is not a universally agreed view. Thus the template, which cannot carry different views, is inherently POV. Favouring one view against another. Therefore it must be deleted despite your best efforts to propagandize these issues.--Zleitzen 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    - - You are persoanlly attacking contributers and remember this is wikipedia we have rules and those rules are WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Please dont be selective in you approach to application of wikipedia rules. Thanks RaveenS 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        Zleitzen I am not "propagandizing" in any way or form. In fact I am making this as NPOV as I possibly can.Baka man 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        Bakasuprman, I was writing about RaveenS. Who eventually changed the title to "Allegations" after a long protratcted dispute to remove the template. But apparently RaveenS went back on this recently and changed it again. Hence yet another protracted dispute. By the way, none of what I have written here contravenes NPA - I've merely stated the facts.--Zleitzen 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        Comment You are wrong in your haste to attack fellow wikipedians. I did not change it to Allegations initially, it was changed by different user. see . I changed it to Attributed later on. Not only have you violated WP:NPA repetedly against me but also Wp:Civilby terming my edits as despite your best efforts to propagandize. I demand an apology. Thanks RaveenS
Very Strong Keep Strong Independent sources back up everything that is said in this article, as well, "Terrorism" is not an abstract concept that only despots can use to accuse their political opponants of to win sympathy and the right to abuse human rights, it is a very clear cut, and sources do substantiate it in Sri Lanka --Sharz 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong KeepI am also the same opinion of Sharz. "Terrorism" is not an abstract concept that could be only utilised to accuse the enemies in war to win sympathy and the right to abuse human rights. Rajsingam 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Being of the opinion that a bias is neutral does not make it neutral in fact. -Amarkov _edits 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete ~~Or Rename~~ The name of the template is undeniably POV, which breaks many wikipedia rules. The articles in the template are already very visible to most of the readers without the template. The template needs big clean up it contains name(s) of individual(s) where there is not even an article exist.As some of the editors have suggested, to call some of these acts as State Terrorism is Original Research (eg:- the Forced Disappearances section--how would you know if it is forced, unless you were watching?

). There are many many questions like this to be asked. If the wording is corrected and not biased then I suggest we rename this, in my opinion it should be renamed as '"Alleged Atrocities of Sri Lankan Army or Government"' ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 07:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

- I missed to read Kerr avon's comments. I change my opinion as per him. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to Closing Admin This template has been nominated for deletion several times. And has been the focal point of edit wars and many other issues in Sri Lanka related articles. To ease the tension between edit warring parties I created Template:Sri Lankan Conflict to cover the topics in a way that would be satisfying everyone and adhere to WP:NPOV, the creator of this template User:RaveenS agrees that the template I have created is sufficeint here if you notice he even agrees that this (i.e. State Terrorism) template is dubious. After some discussion with me RaveenS agreed to let go the template; you can see the entire conversation here. I understand that it is difficult for RaveenS to part with a template that he created with a good intention. But this template has been highly disruptive and has wasted a lot of time. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please Netmonger, let the Wikiprocess take it course, true to my job description I am always thing about Continuous Improvement. Improving this template or merging it others. My conversation in your talk page was regarding that.RaveenS

Strong Keep Sri Lanka uses death squads in the war against JVPand Tamils Kandyboy 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Single purpose account — Kandyboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kerr avon 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disallow for articles, or delete, if that is not an option. We're just not ready yet. Currently, even much less contentious Sri Lanka conflict related issues habitually create fierce revert wars, so I think it would only reduce our chances of getting anything done here. This question can be revisisted once we achieve more agreement on easier issues. — Sebastian 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You mean remove contentious articlesfrom the template ? RaveenS 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentThis deletion has already been proposed on Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 15; result was: no consensus. — Sebastian 04:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC), corrected 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Despite the wide raging political views expressed here, I'd just like to point out that no one has as yet been able to refute what I said in the first sentence of this nomination, which was

No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism".

It doesn't matter if individual Misplaced Pages editors think these incidents are "state terrorism" or not. Its just beyond the point. The fact is Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a political forum to express our opinions. Everything we include on Misplaced Pages has to be cited from reliable sources, or it will end up resembling a gossip column.

I appeal to everyone who voted "keep" here for reasons nothing to do with the nomination, please provide citations for each of the events listed in this template to show which notable independent organization called them "state terrorism", and if so I'll withdraw this nomination. If no citations can be provided, please accept that it is your POV and your OR to call them "state terrorism", read the reasons for my TFD nomination again and kindly reconsider your votes. --snowolfD4 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The above user requested to everyone who voted "keep" here for reasons to show notable independent sources for "state terrorism", I like to provide the following sources:

Comment I don't pretend to know a lot about Sri Lankan politics, and am only here because I objected to POV material on another State terrorism page, but those citations are all from Tamil sources and are by no means independent neutral assessments.For instance, the quote "It's state terror in Sri Lanka" is merely reported in the Hindu and is quoting a speaker at a Tamil rally. It is an allegation from a partisan group and should be attributed as such, not presented as fact.--Zleitzen 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply The Hindu is not a partisan source. Though the other one is from a Tamil newspaper's translation, the "Asian Human Rights Commission" might have given enough thought for reliability and other checks and balances for verification of the truth before it published.Rajsingam 07:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Seems Rajsingam didn't understand snowolf's comment. He told No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism".
Sri Lankan State Terror: Through the Eyes of a Dissident - Oh not the someones opinion Raj. See this, Cameron Walker: Sri Lankan State Terror Monday, 30 October 2006, 12:08 pm, Opinion: Guest Opinion.
"It's state-sponsored terror in Sri Lanka" - The Hindu Special Correspondent reporting from Tamil Nadu about a really that conduct by one of the South Indian extreme pro LTTE party, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam against Sri Lankan Government. So still you think that this is independent?
Stop State Terrorism in Sri Lanka - This is an online petition that holding only one vote.

Even it has 100,000 votes Raj it cannot categorized as INDEPENDENT.

SRI LANKA: Featured Articles: State Terrorism - This article was retrieved by the "SiberNews" that highly regarded as one of the pro LTTE online news media. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 07:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply It's not the organisation that matters a lot, but the bottom line of the truth and it can be from anywhere reasonably.Rajsingam 07:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Read this first Raj. Hope you would be notice the forth key policy, Avoid bias. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply Thanks. I read, but it's very difficult from the available criteria to define an information source whether it is biased or not.Rajsingam 08:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I restate that this template is being used as a banner add to defame the sri lankan government. Take Taraki_Sivaram for example, there is no evidence whatsoever that the sri lankan government was behind the killing (see the controversy section), with even the former LTTE commander Colonel Karuna stating that the LTTE was behind it, yet when we go to the article we have the template in question stating blodly "Allegations of State terrorism in Sri Lanka", which gives the impression that the sri lankan government killed Sivaram which is blatantly false. This shows that the template is maliciously being used to defame a sovereign government using original research and as such should be speedilt deleted to avoid further controversy.Kerr avon 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Japanese Blitzkrieg in Korea

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not being used and the title is complete nonsense. --Wikimachine 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Moveto2

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Template. Created by a user to put at the top of Death Cap to announce the intention to move the article.Already have Template:Move that should be put on the talk page. Don't need another template to clutter the article itself, especially when the change has little impact on the article itself. --Bobblehead 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

January 5

Template:Campaignbox Chungju Campaign

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not being used. --Wikimachine 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not necessary. Xiner (talk, email) 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Just because a template is not being used does not automatically qualify it for deletion.--C J King 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there are more generic templates for the same job. >Radiant< 13:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:wdefcon

The result of the debate was speedy kept per my lack of understanding _→AzaToth 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As heard from people, I have got the impression that this template is redundant and obsolete, thus qualify for deletion. _→AzaToth 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I find this very useful when determining where to allocate my wiki time. With lower levels, I can devote my time to de-orphaning articles or other more advanced tasks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep -I feel that it is very useful for checking my watched pages when vandalism levels are high. Big Boss 0 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per EVula. No valid reason given for deletion. -- Kesh 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Despite AzaThoth's rewording of the deletion request, there is still no valid reason given for deletion. -- Kesh 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep, as Wikipedians on IRC are not the only ones with opinions. Not a very strong nom, and I find this template useful. –Llama man 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep- per I don't like it-"incredibly stupid" is POV. --TeckWizContribs_@ 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep per Chrislk02 - if it's quiet, I'll find something creative to do, if there's a lot of vandalism, I'll fire up VandalProof and keep an eye on what's happening. This MfD wiil do nothing but piss off more people and make IRC even more unpopular than it already is. IRC is an incredibly useful tool for assisting in the improvement of Misplaced Pages but if people carry on with this sort of stupid shit, nobody is going to respect any editor or sysop who can be found on IRC. Total and utter shoot yourself in the foot job. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per all the great reasons. It's NOT redundant OR obsolete...it's updated 5-10 times a day. P TO 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete (and why on earth should this nomination be speedily closed, just because an IRC channel and a template has mobilised all the fans of this?) this is a hang over from the worst of the CVU-paramilitary days and is well passed its sell-by date. Vandalism isn't something to be 'fought' with silly flashing lights but dealt with simply by reverting and blocking. We don't want to allow vandals to present themselves as a serious threat, nor an 'enemy' (see WP:DENY). This isn't a war-zone it is a serious encyclopedia.--Doc 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. What exactly is wrong with it? It's pretty clear that a lot of users typically involve themselves in more than one task. If I see the defcon to be at 3 or higher, I go on recent changes and fix vandalism. If it's 1 or 2, I usually do other things like work on articles and go to AfD or do other chores. --Wafulz 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't hear about it from IRC (which I'm almost never on). I found the TfD from my admin page, where it is one of the several handy items I use to help administer Misplaced Pages efficiently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That's my point. We should discuss this. But, naturally, the fact that this is a template that its supporters all like and watch means it will attract a disproportionate number of supporters to this debate. That does not allow you to get a 'speedy keep' before the rest of the community gets its say. The call for 'speedy' is without any basis or reason whatsoever. The question of deletion or not we can discuss over the next number of days.--Doc 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - What I meant was that I don't understand your motive for deletion. Also, from my understanding, speedy keep can be applied to faulty nominations, such as this one where the nom has not said why the template is either redundant or obsolete. --Wafulz 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Doc, I have to say I'm surprised at your tone. To dismiss those who disagree with you as mere fans strikes me as elitist or worse. Intemperate language is no reason for anyone to agree with you. TfD tagging a template watched by many Wikipedians is enough to guarantee a strong turnout of those who find the template useful. Fans of silly flashing lights notwithstanding, there seems to be plenty of support for this eminently useful template. --Ssbohio 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment I'd like to point out that, at the time I called for Speedy Keep, the reason for deleting it was entirely substandard (as it is, I still find it wanting). If you can make an argument for its deletion without trivializing me as some loony fan boy, that'd be just swell. I don't see how it is obsolete, since I (and several others) use it as a guiding star, of sorts, for what we should pay attention to the most; when we're at 4 or 5, I focus more on article work, but any time we're above that, I usually focus more on blocks/deletions (and specifically any note saying "admins needed at WP:soandso"). Please present an alternative to the template, and I may reconsider its obsolescence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - Actually, Doc, I find the template to be silly and find it rather unnecessary. However, I still voted Speedy Keep because there was no reason given to delete it besides I don't like it. The proposed deletion gives no reasoning besides "a few people say it's obsolete." Despite my feelings about the template itself, the vote seems rather obvious to me. -- Kesh 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. I check this template on my user page to gauge whether I should apply myself at RCP or elsewhere. --Wafulz 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep wow, have you noted how many uses use this template and its various others. I always to a quick check of the guage whenever I am off to vandalfight. It is extremely helpful to me and to countless others. — Arjun 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per Evula. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid. There may well be good reasons for deletion, but the nominator has not given them. And it is time to start thinking very carefully about Misplaced Pages and IRC. Moreschi 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've given good reasons. It glorifies vandalism and trivialises wikipedia.--Doc 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep so long as it is useful, which it is. Prodego 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Very useful, warns me to revert vandalism.--�PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would really like to know why this template is deemed to be redundant. --Sagaciousuk 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. Ineffective. Two obvious spelling errors went uncorrected for one hour: . Either nobody saw it, nobody noticed the mistake, or nobody felt moved to correct it. Whichever the case, I don't think this template is accomplishing its objective. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Perfection is an unattainable goal. Because two edits slipped through does not mean this template deserves deletion. One has nothing to do with the other. -- Kesh 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Beg differ. The user who has edited the template just got blocked for vandalism. Your template was effectively vandalized for an hour without anyone lifting a finger. This doesn't bode well. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"My" template? Note my comment above. I think it's a silly template and see little use for it. However, that is not a reason for it to be deleted. If someone resubmitted with valid reasons to delete, I would likely support the deletion. This isn't it. I don't like it is not a valid reason to delete something. -- Kesh 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument for the template's deletion is based on the fact that there was an uncorrected typo? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep An impression of being redundant is an awfully weak & weasel-worded reason to delete. If the nominator isn't certain there's a reason to delete, then why should anyone delete based on this nom? Additionally, this template is useful to the administration of the project. I check it when I come on and use it to decide whether to edit or patrol for vandalism. Vandals will not disappear if we remove this template. In short, no policy basis cited to support deletion of this useful template, so speedy keep it. --Ssbohio 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep Very useful for allocating time between "patrol" and "actual work". --science4sail con 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Incredibly useful. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - not exactly everyone has access to IRC, and this template allows excellent coordination of counter-vandalism activities, such as by mobilising and pointing vandalfighters in the right direction during high/topical vandalism periods, and directing admins to WP:AIV and CAT:CSD whenever a backlog builds up. Despite living in the wrong country, I was able to help out when that Colbert Report/Elephant stuff hit the fan, because I found out about it from wdefcon. CaptainVindaloo 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per previous discussions. Zsinj 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I find it very useful for knowing when vandalism levels are up. I tend to work more on spelling and other housekeeping chores. When vandalism levels are up, I like to know and respond. --Pigman 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongest Keep there is Wdefcon is INVALUEABLE to rc patrollers and vandal fighters. KeepKeepKeep! --B ezking 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Default to keep per complete lack of any convincing reasons on either side. -Amarkov _edits 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Why are we going through this again when a recent TfD resulted in a resounding Keep? Again, this template is incredibly useful. I check it regularly to see when I should fire up VP and join the CVU on active patrol. I especially appreciate, per CaptainVindaloo, that the template can be easily updated and customized to direct editors and admins to where their efforts are most needed. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I find the levels to be useful. I don't usually do vandalism patrol, but when the level is elevated I often put my hand in. So this template helps me. Herostratus 02:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Contradict-section

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a new parameter to {{contradict}} that now allows it to be used for both articles and sections. I've updated the template page and the template talk page on that template to reflect my updates. --NMajdan•talk 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete {{Contradict}} can be used to get the same content as this template. –Llama man 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Redundant. --Wafulz 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a good reason not to replace with {{Contradict|section}} so people don't have to waste their time finding the other with parameter? -Amarkov _edits 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I added a new parameter to {{contradict}} so now this template is redundant. the {{Contradict|section}} you mentioned was the parameter I added.--NMajdan•talk 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Redundant after revisions. TonyTheTiger 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:GW characters

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant with generic {{Infobox character}}. Cache load, consistency, etc. Same reasons as {{HouseCharacter}}, which was TFD'd on 29 Dec --The JPS 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest there is very little information in them, and it gets repeated in the article, so you might as well delete them, although keep the images. ISD 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Only ~10 mainspace transclusions, and {{Infobox character}} is much more informative. The character's name, occupation, and actor should be expected to be mentioned in the main content of the article, anyway. –Llama man 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I seen no advantage to this over the standard character infobox. -Amarkov _edits 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:toppostusertalk

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed to delete upon further consideration. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Force people to top-post in a system with builtin bottom-posting, strange... _→AzaToth 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep There's nothing wrong with it. Many times new users/anons will post at the very top above the first heading and this just asks them to not. Koweja 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Er, this says to post at the top. Xiner (talk, email) 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Koweja. Quite a few users have had a fair share of vandals/newbies leaving new messages at the top of user talk pages and not putting headers on them. However, maybe the template should be moved to a clearer name, as the current one is pretty confusing. –Llama man 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it currently says post at the top This turns to keep if its corrected to say post at bottom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it currently stands. It says (and has always said) to post at the top, which makes no sense (nor do the above keep !voters' rationales). -- Kicking222 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Contradicts the way MediaWiki works and so is likely to cause (harmless) confusion. There's no reason a user cannot ask to have new messages at the top, but they should probably just be educated to not use this template. —Dgies 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Bluntly, is it really hurting anything? If there is one stating "post new messages at the bottom," what's wrong with having a template that says to post them at the top? One may wish to simply have new messages posted at the top, to prevent having to waste time going to look at the bottom. If one should be deleted, then the other should be, in turn; such a talk page rule (post new messages at the bottom) should be well-enforced, if people are really and truly bothered by this template. BishopTutu 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as said, several keeps here seem to not be reading it properly: it says to post at the top, not the bottom. And to require users to post at the top counter-policy is both confusing to established users and horribly disorienting to non-established users. Delete. -Patstuart 17:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:YouTube user

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

delete - non notable Youtube userpage spamming template. --Illio5f 14:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. YouTube is a notable site. It's already quite well-known, so I wouldn't call it spam. There is also a somewhat weak and confusing nomination ("YouTube userpage spamming template" could mean it's spammed on Misplaced Pages userpages, spammed on mainspace articles with the link leading to the YouTube userpage, and probably more things). –Llama man 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Aren't we supposed to avoid YouTube links? Besides, it's not used on any userpages. It's only used on articles, which makes it a tool for spamming. P TO 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Links to Youtube have been controversial and are deprecated because Youtube does not habitually provide copyright information and contains tons of copyright infringements. This might mean Misplaced Pages becomes liable for contributory infringement of copyright. It should certainly not be encouraged. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Links to YouTube should not be universally discouraged, but linking to a YouTube userpage is rarely needed. However, the current usages of this template seem fine from both notability and copyright viewpoints. -CarelessHair 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Initially I thought that this was a userbox, which I would Strong Keep, but if this is actually meant to be transcluded in mainspace, delete it. If the article subject is solely notable in the context of YouTube, like lonelygirl15, definitely include an external link to there, but we don't need a template to do it. Gracenotes § 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as un-necessary.--cj | talk 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unncessary. Xiner (talk, email) 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--C J King 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary template that could be simply typed into the page. This isn't what template space is for. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is useful to standardize the form of certain external links if we have a legitimate need for a lot of them. In this case we only need the link when the subject is notable, and they have an official/authorized account on YouTube. That is probably pretty rare. Otherwise this will just encourage NN subjects to engage in self-promotion. —Dgies 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - what the heck is wrong with it? If we have a YouTube users, then creating a link to their site is something we'd be doing anyway in the article. This just makes it easier. -Patstuart 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cocktail-expand

The result of the debate was Deleted by admin Alai (per too-many-*FD-listings-to-mention). Non admin closure of orphaned TFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I had first listed this at SFD since it was related to a similar discussion (located here). As I mentioned over there, this is non-standard usage of {{expand}} used specifically for WikiProject Cocktails ~ Amalas rawr 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

DELETE - I have listed all the articles in the Project to-do list and removed this template from all articles. It is ready for deletion. Thanks for giving me the time to complete the work. :-) --Willscrlt 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Move to user subpage~~ - First, let me state that I am not (yet) familiar with all the terms that were brought up as reasons to delete these. I will do so quickly, but let me explain a few things, and hopefully we can fix these rather than delete them outright.

These are all part of a massive cleanup project the WikiProject Cocktails is undertaking. It started in December and the cleanup project ends February 28th. At the very least, please do not delete these prior to that date. It has been soooo much effort to help categorize and tag all the articles, this would set us back terribly and just be devastating to the efforts of a small, but growing number of people who are helping to improve these broad section of articles. We have been making real headway, and these helpful tags and the related categories have been at the heart of organizing our work. If we did something wrong (and I'm sure we did since it's up for discussion here), please give us a chance to fix it.
The normal expand template does nothing to alert members of the WikiProject Cocktails that an article is in need of expansion. The tag we created does that by listing it in a category that is easy for project members to locate and use. This really helps us organize our efforts.
When I started this whole initiative back in December, I was fairly new to editing at Misplaced Pages. I have learned a lot since. I am flexible, and do like to follow standards. If something doesn't work, or if I do something wrong, I change and self-correct. I see that most WikiProjects use some form of categorization within the WikiProject Banners they place on talk pages. I'm completely fine with changing and converting the (apparently bad) system we use now to something like that, but if you just delete these outright right now, you will make that soooo very much more difficult to do.
These are not random templates and categories that were created on a whim. Each one was well thought out, and attempting to do so within the "proper" ways of doing things here. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages has more guidelines and policies than the average well-meaning Wikipedian can possibly hope to learn in a short amount of time. But that does not give us an excuse, but I do ask that you give us the time to fix things.
If there is a better way to meet our goals and fall within established guidelines, please advise me. Then please give me time or help us swap out the currently marked articles to the new method so we can be within compliance.
Thank you for your consideration. Now I'm off to go read up on several policies of which I was unaware. *sigh* --Willscrlt 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Orderinchaos78 for the suggestion. I am making good headway on converting from these disagreeable templates to proper assessment standards for identifying these articles. It really, really would be helpful if the articles were not stripped of these tags or merged into the regular stubs category. These fit into neither category, but they do fit nicely into the assessment scheme. I have copied down the names of all the currently flagged drinks, but it would make editing faster and easier if I they could stay linked for a bit longer. I promise to completely eliminate both the template and category just as soon as I am finished (probably under a week). If that's not possible, so be it. It just would be very helpful. Sorry everyone for causing this disruption. And thanks again, Orderinchaos78, for the suggestion. :-) --Willscrlt 09:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close/keep Faulty nomination, belongs into TFD. CharonX/talk 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know this is a template, but I was trying to keep it together with the similarly listed Category:Cocktails (expand) below. ~ Amalas rawr 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTE, this was MOVED from WP:MFD as in improper listing. — xaosflux 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to user subpage - this sounds exactly like the sort of thing I'd have as a subpage when working on a heap of articles. Per Misplaced Pages:Subpages - note that just because it's under your user page (or project page) doesn't stop others from editing or accessing it if you wish, but can't be "inbound linked" - see the previously cited page for guidelines. Orderinchaos78 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into {{cocktail-stub}}Just H 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
COMMENT - The deletion notice template was added into part of the template that transcludes onto various articles, leaving nasty looking deletion notices on the articles. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, but it is a good reminder to be careful to place such templates within a noinclude block, not in the included part of a template. (Unless it really is the intention to ahve the articles look like they are about to be deleted, too.) I'm moving it inside of the noinclude tags for now. --Willscrlt 09:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into {{cocktail-stub}}. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:WPBrisbaneNotice

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This template is deprecated by WP Australia|Brisbane=yes. No transclusions remain. Orderinchaos78 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as obsolete.--cj | talk 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Orphaned, obselete. –Llama man 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:WPMNotice

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This template is deprecated by WP Australia|Melbourne=yes. No transclusions remain. Orderinchaos78 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as obsolete.--cj | talk 18:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:POEEJ

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright tag whose license terms are incompatible with Misplaced Pages. This copyright tag is for the "Post Office Electrical Engineers' Journal", which copyrights its material and allows reprints of up to one-third of any article. That's not the same as releasing the material under a free license. --BigDT 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It is not clear that this supposed allowance covers images. -Amarkov _edits 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete' as spam. Wimstead 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - promotes non-GFDL-compatible copyright. Misplaced Pages is not simply "reprinting". Was created only yesterday, has been applied to 3 images. Orderinchaos78 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I created this tag. The POEEJ was the Journal of the Institution of Post Office Electrical Engineers, and it was considered a serious engineering journal at the time - a British equivalent of the Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ). It ceased publication in 1981. It remains a very valuable primary source for research into telecomms history. Up to one-third of an article obviously includes everything in that article - it's absurd to infer that the 'one-third' applies to text only when the journal itself says nothing of the sort. It's equally absurd to expect a journal that expired 26 years ago to release content under a free license. I do wish you guys would get a clue before sounding off, because dangerously uninformed wikicops and self-appointed wikicrats are pissing off people who actually write CONTENT in droves. I've contributed a hell of a lot to WP but these days almost everything I try to create gets messed around with by people who don't know what they're talking about. This is the last straw. Fuck the lot of you, I'm outta here for good. Harumphy 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not a free license, and not a special case where the vast majority of examples would meet our requirements for fair use. --Carnildo 09:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Sounds like rights were explicitly released so long as the one-third requirement is kept (not hard), and plenty of valid images on WP require attribution. No problem with mirrors either, as it's to everyone and not just WP. Lastly, since they're defunct, there is absolutely no risk of them changing the licesing terms later. Misplaced Pages is not evangelism; just because it's copyrighted/closed source doesn't mean that it can't be used. SnowFire 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- It permits reproduction, which is only part of a free license. In order to be a free license, the license also needs to permit modification and distribution of modified versions. --Carnildo 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:CANADA

The result of the debate was being bold, redirected. Maxarre, if you want to {{db-author}} it, feel free. Patstuart 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merely duplicates Template:CAN; only has one use --Mk3severo 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and redirect duplicates which are used -Amarkov _edits 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Be bold per Amarkov. Xiner (talk, email) 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Be bold and boldly go where no man has gone before. (I don't get the "be bold" joke) Maxarre 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I was unaware of the existence of the CAN template when I made this one; I thought I had searched thoroughly enough for an existing template before I resorted to creating one. I updated the one page that reference this article by pointing it to the approved "CAN" template. Maxarre 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. - Privacy 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiMusicGuide

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This template adds an external link to the website WikiMusicGuide. The WikiMusicGuide article was deleted per WP:WEB (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WikiMusicGuide), so it's unlikely that a link to this website will meet WP:EL's standards for inclusion. --Muchness 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, of course. Linkspam templates should not be used for things which do not have articles. -Amarkov _edits 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB, nom and the fact it may confuse people into thinking it's affiliated with Misplaced Pages. Orderinchaos78 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Amarkov. I created this template, but it is does not make sense to keep it if the article on the site was deleted. – Heave n's Wrath 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. Even if the article was not deleted, I don't think this template would be even the least bit necessary (no offense, Heaven's). -- Kicking222 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

January 4

Template:Cap'n Truman Cloggs

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Angela (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is out of contect nonsense. Probably created in error. --Obina 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Danaman5 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete; this is not a template. -/- Warren 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lquote

The result of the debate was deleteCirceus 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not used. More importantly, one of the only remaining templates using Template:click. The problem with that is as described in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images - it took a great deal of effort to take it out of Template:Cquote. --AnonEMouse 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between Lquote and Cquote? Just the use of {{click}}? Kaldari 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The creation comment says (cquote except keep it left-justified;) AnonEMouse 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) bravely avoiding the temptation to use a quote template to quote that)

Delete — {{cquote}} and {{Rquote}} are more flexible and are widely used. --surueña 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sailor-Moon-stub-section

The result of the debate was rename Circeus 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I had first listed this at WP:SFD due to -stub- being in the name and it had been feeding into a stub cat (discussion here). I since removed the stub cat association and listed it here. This is a non-standard usage of {{sectstub}} for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sailor Moon. ~ Amalas rawr 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiousity and the desire to make an informed vote, is it problematic to have nonstandard {{sectstub}}-like templates? --Masamage 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Still waiting for a response to this... --Masamage 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
As per What I said on the other Page, Keep Lego3400: The Sage of Time 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but would be better it its name was changed to {{Sailor Moon sectstub}} or similar, to make it clear it is not a stub template. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rework before keeping. Xiner (talk, email) 04:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename per Grutness. —CComMack (t–c) 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sailor-Moon-stub-List

The result of the debate was no consensus Circeus 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As above, this is a non-standard usage of {{listdev}} ~ Amalas rawr 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, {{expand list}} (I must have missed the move). ~ Amalas rawr 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agian as I said on the other Page, KeepLego3400: The Sage of Time 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but would be better it its name was changed to {{Sailor Moon expand list}} or similar, to make it clear it is not a stub template. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - no problem with this --T-rex 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Seems okay, but the word "chibi" really needs to be changed. This is an English encyclopedia, and people not familiar with Japanese slang will not understand what's being said. -/- Warren 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Chibi means Runt and it is not slang. Its slang amoung anime fandom though. Any one familer with sailor Moon knows this defintly and many other fans know this. and remember its for SM only . Also we always use the JP version over the buchery they call a dub at the project. It is staying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego3400 (talk • contribs)

Um, the problem is that most WP users don't speak Japanese. Just because you look up Sailor Moon in an encyclopedia doesn't mean you already know everything about it, right? Sticking to English is standard WP policy, and for the creator to insist that one word must stay, over the objections of the community, doesn't look good. --Masamage 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename per Grutness. —CComMack (t–c) 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Current subject

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is a "current events" template of sorts, but it's very under-used. When I found it, it was used on just 3 articles, and had been on each of them for over a month, so I removed it. The template as worded could apply to basically tens of thousands of topics... "This article documents subject matter currently covered by prominent news source(s)." After reflecting I've decided this template isn't really different than {{current}}, so there's really no need for it. The template was created out of an objection to the wording of the current event template (see the talk page) so I don't know, do we really want to have a seperate hardly-ever-used template? Do we want to change {{current}} slightly? --W.marsh 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wimstead 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because the wording is awkward, and {{current-related}} already addresses those concerns. However, for accuracy I'd recommend pluralizing the language of {{current-related}}, so that it reads "This article is related to current events. Information may change rapidly as events progress." Then editors could be advised to use {{current}} only when the primary subject of the article is itself a "current event." Even so, there will likely continue to be a significant yet tolerable amount of inaccurate use of all of these. -Tobogganoggin 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep legit. See Template talk:Current news, which was the original location. It certainly seems far more pertinent than {{Future UK channel}} (versus {{Future TV channel}}) or {{Future sport event}} (vs. {{Future sport}}). Actually, while Category:Temporal templates might have been allowed to overgrow, this is not one that should go in my opinion.Circeus 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Beta Theta Pi Chapters

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This was nominated for deletion a month ago to no consensus (discussion here). However, present discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard seems to suggest a consensus to delete. It is only being used on 3 chapter articles, there are about 7 redirects in there, and the rest are 200+ red links. The template's sole purpose is to encourage the creation of articles on individual chapters of the fraternity which are almost always non-notable outside the national organization. --Metros232 14:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Local chapter articles should be the exception (see Zeta Phi) rather than the rule. Accordingly I've added a See also to the main article to reference that chapter—and to explain the notability of the chapter and its history. I see no need to keep this template. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per C.Fred and the individual chapter articles created already within this template should be deleted also. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - In the previous TfD I advocated giving leeway if it was trimmed to include only chapters which had an article that asserted notability. Upon closer inspection, must bluelinks are redirects and there are only perhaps two notable chapters; therefore this template is unnecessary and will encourage vanity articles. —Dgies 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom and C.Fred. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, overkill. >Radiant< 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I was about to speedily delete this template, as it now consists solely of a few redirects to Beta Theta Pi and about 200 redlinks; the few articles it did have have now been deleted either via AFD or via CSD A7 (failing to assert notability). Then I noticed it was at TFD, so instead will suggest that we close and delete this as soon as is suitable. Proto::► 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and close discussion asap per Proto - it's a navigation template with nothing but red links and redirects to the same page. There's no possible use for it. It seems like further discussion would be pointless. delldot | talk 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:User_en-cñ

The result of the debate was userfy Circeus 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, the "language" Konyo/Coño does not exist in ISO 639 and en-cñ is an invented code. { PMGOMEZ } 08:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Userfy. I'll volunteer to host this. --Howard the Duck 11:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re "Userfy": I believe Lagalag should be the one to host this as its creator. { PMGOMEZ } 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, we could delete it. Besides, that was created during a time when using actual language codes still was not important to WP, seeing that templates for Southern Californian (whose description went something like, “Dude… this user… like… speaks English… dude…”), etc. existed. Which brings me to ask: What about those other templates linking to Hessisch, Runglish, etc. using unofficial codes? —Lagalag 12:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could propose for them to be deleted? { PMGOMEZ } 13:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m all neutral on this issue, what for? —Lagalag 13:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Coño is a Spanish swear word. Asterion 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic question: Does it have anything to do with being rich? --Howard the Duck 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. It is slang for vagina. Generally used to express anger, contempt or similar emotions. Asterion 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. (You may remove this conversation if you'd want to.) --Howard the Duck 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Userfy. Asterion 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Either keep or userfy. The lack or presence of a code does not necessarily indicate that a particular linguistic phenomenon exists. Coño English is a type of English spoken by upper-class and/or educated Filipinos. --Chris S. 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or userfy if someone really wants it ... if this language doesn't actually exist and is only a profane template, why keep it in template space? --BigDT 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or userfy languange very informal but could be kept by a user if someone really wants it for his own userpage. KathzzZz 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Please see Coño. The creator should be warned, unless I'm mistaken. Xiner (talk, email) 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Warned? It wasn't use offensively. In the Philippines it has no offensive context. I mean, Howard's comment above indicated he didn't know about its offensiveness. --Chris S. 08:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Userfy - People are getting all upset because this has a swear word. It's really just the hispanophone equivalent of Template:User_en-B. —Dgies 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the language is non-existent; we wouldn't keep a Babal-box for Intermediate Martian speakers would we? Anthony cfc 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Userfy - If you look at the amount of users that 'speak' konyo, you'll find that it's not just something the user made out of the blue. It's not offensive in the Philippines and I don't think the user who created the template should be warned. It just refers to the Filipino upper-class and their way of speaking. By the way, I couldn't disagree more with Dgies statement. It's more like the Filipino equivalent of Valley Girl... Well, if the phrase 'Valley Girl' had a swear word in it, at least. Konyo could be considered more of a 'language' than 'bullshit'... Anyways, I say userfy it, pare! Ham let 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Srbox pieces

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Srbox piece

Template:Srbox piece 2

Template:Srbox piece 3

These templates were used in the early days of WP:USRD to provide browsing for state highway systems across Interstate and U.S. route pages. They have since been deprecated by a full set of "XX browse" templates ({{ca browse}}, {{ny browse}}...) that perform the same feature, except in a much more cleaner and presentable fashion. As such, the srbox pieces should be deleted. TMF 06:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Sr box piece}}, a redirect to Srbox piece, should be deleted as well. TMF 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete superseded templates. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom and Scott V60 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above/. ---Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above - deprecated • master_son 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This template has been officially deprecated since February of last year. It is redundant with {{NoRightsReserved}} and to a lesser extent {{PD-release}} or {{PD-self}}. It has been a very problematic template due to vague wording and frequent confusion between the meaning of "free use" and "fair use". The consensus of all discussions of its fate so far have been to dispense with it in favor of better-worded alternatives. Migration of all transclusions was approved in November and finally completed this week. Please see discussion here for more info. I will be very glad to finally see this template go. --Kaldari 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. The issue of license tagging is hard enough to figure out as it is without superfluous and old templates floating around. -/- Warren 11:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to {{No rights reserved}} (first choice) or delete (second choice). The name really ought to be kept around ... otherwise, someone is just going to make it again six months from now. --BigDT 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, {{No rights reserved}} is actually in discussion to merge into {{PD-release}}, so if we were to redirect, I would prefer that we redirect to {{PD-release}}. Really though, I would prefer to not have any license template named "Free Use" (even as a redirect) since your average Misplaced Pages editor seems to easily confuse "Free Use" with "Fair Use". I would prefer that we delete it outright. If someone does recreate the template, I would just nominate it for deletion again. The fact that someone might recreate the template is not a very good argument against deletion, IMO. Kaldari 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Public domaining an image, has different legal consequences then a person maintaining the copyright of an image but allowing all free usage of the image. Also changing the copyright status without asking to the author is asking for trouble, particularly when the image permission was obtained from a non-Wikipedian. PPGMD 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is already a {{NoRightsReserved}} template which is a much better version of the license you are describing. As for the PD v. Free use issue, please see this discussion. Also, switching the template is not an issue. That action has already been debated, approved, and performed. This template is not currently used by any images (as of January 4). Kaldari 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I just deleted Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg, which PPGMD had tagged with this template but written was only for noncommercial use. PPGMD, please tag any other images that are actually licensed under a noncommercial license with {{noncommercial}} so that they can be deleted as well, and, if this template is not deleted, do not use it like this in the future. Jkelly 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - So you disregarded procedures and deleted an image without notifying the uploader on his talk page. If you took more then 5 minutes to look at the page you would have seen that I am Shawn Clark, and I can changed the license on the image by request when the page it was on came up for FA nomination. You are exactly the type of admins that are ruining Misplaced Pages. PPGMD 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Nice to meet you too. Noncommercial licensed images, regardless of what boilerplate may be put on the page, meet Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please don't expect to receive any warning about media not appropriately licensed being deleted. Jkelly 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Read your own link, they can only be speedy deleted if they were uploaded after May 15th, 2005, that image was uploaded in 2004. Images uploaded before then can only be speedy deleted if they aren't used in any article. Don't let anger of someone opposing a deletion get in the way of procedures. PPGMD 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Superceded by {{NoRightsReserved}}. Congratulations to Kaldari for this big cleanup job! Jkelly 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete High time we got rid of this, copyright issues are confusing enough without this. Some people just see "copyrighted" and use it on everyting, others just see "free" and use it on everyting they didn't pay for, and then there are the free/fair confusion and "with permission" mess mentioned above. --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Far too often, "copyrighted free use" is interpreted as meaning "the image is copyrighted, I was able to get my hands on it for free, and I want to use it". --Carnildo 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I have no great objection to deletion. But I also see no benefit, to this standard practice of removing "commonly misused" tags, which merely encourages people to misuse other tags, which in-turn, become less reliable. It used to be you could pretty much predict which images were copyvios based on what tag they had (e.g. almost all of certain tags were bad, and the bulk of certain other tags were good). Also, in principal, we should rarely change or remove image copyright tags, as whatever the copyright holder uploaded as, is the legal statement. One should never retroactively changed a legal declaration. If somebody makes a legal declaration of copyright release, then either that release is adequate (leave it alone) or inadequate (delete the image). But anyhow, it seems the tag has already been "unused", and the matter is settled, so I'm mainly just stating my opposition to this approach, rather than this specific deletion. --Rob 06:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree for the most part, although in this case the wording is so vague it seems we must guess as to the uploader's intentions regardless of whether we change the tag or not. Kaldari 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete This terminology is far too confusing for new users. Effectively obsoleted by NoRightsReserved anyway, which also has the benefit of being much clearer terminology. "CopyrightedFreeUse" means "I found it on a public internet server" to a very large number of people. - cohesion 12:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:CatDiffuse

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This template, and the associated category are a bad idea. They give the impression that all big categories must be diffused into smaller ones. This is not true (though it is very common unquestioned assumption). BIG CATEGORIES ARE NOT BAD. I've specifically asked Brion (who manages the WIkipedia servers) about this and he says there is no technical reason that we have to break up big categories into small ones. We have category table of contents that can help us navigate through big categories {{CategoryTOC}} and huge categories {{LargeCategoryTOC}}. So categories do not necessarily have to be be broken up when they get large. Our categories are like book indexes which list all the articles on a topic in alphabetical order.

There is absolutely nothing in the Categorization guidelines that says you must diffuse large categories into smaller ones. I'm sure of this because I wrote the most recent overhaul of the guidelines. The idea that every large category must be broken down into tiny subcategories is archaic. It is a hold-over from Misplaced Pages culture from two years ago that has to be put to rest. There is no reason that a category cannot be ANY size. If the topic is big, you can break it down to smaller pieces if those are useful and help people browse through similar articles. However, we should make the decisions about category groupings based solely on utility. The question is What articles will people be looking for and where will they look for it? Many large and huge categories are just fine and do not need to be broken down any smaller. Smaller intersections are also not necessary. Eventually, the software will add the capability of adding category intersections on the fly. If we do want to have smaller subcategories, the larger ones do not necessarily need to be depopulated. If they were useful groupings when they were small they remain useful groupings when they get big. The large category should remain, and the smaller ones should duplicate the categorization. We should decide if the extra categorization is needed. If too many categories are being added, it is often because too many subcategories are being added. We cannot assume that just because we come up with a scheme for subcategorization that this will be useful or helpful to the majority of people who use Misplaced Pages. This practice has to be reined in. Deleting this template and the associated category would be a start.

Thanks for reading this. --Samuel Wantman 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and create suitable guidelines for use. The fact that this template is applied too much—or in the wrong places—doesn't mean that there aren't cases (particularly top-level categories such as Category:History or Category:Science) where it's quite appropriate. Deletion is an unnecessarily blunt instrument to use here. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to answer all these points. The problem is that this tag gives no indication of what should be in the category and what should be diffused. Take Category:Science. Most of the articles in this category belong in category Science. If some of them belong and some of them don't this tag is no help. Each high level category, like "Science" needs some specific instructions that help people understand what belongs and what doesn't. Slapping these all with "diffuse", which means nothing to the average person, just makes the category look bad while giving no real instruction about what should happen. Also, I think there are two things going on here. There are top level topic categories that are general topics, and there are also articles about the general topics. That is all well and good. But then lower down there are lower level index categories that are perfectly fine categories, worthy of being populated. But whenever they get big they get divided up. What will be the result if we continue in this direction? The only categories that we will be able to browse will be microscopic in their scope. Why do we assume that everyone wants to browse this way? Some people don't know what they are looking for. That is the definition of browsing. In our system the only way to browse is to know what you are looking for first. -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep What we need is more people making an effort to categorize with precision and the benefit of lateral thinking. This is an excellent template. The promise that software intersection on the fly would be added to the software shortly has been around as long as I have known Misplaced Pages so it is anyone's guess if and when it will actually appear. Sumahoy 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not advocating that we stop categorizing with precision. I am just saying that wholesale diffusion of useful categories should not happen. I am making a distinction between a) the diffusion of categories into smaller sub-categories and b) simply creating new sub-categories and populating them while leaving the original category alone.

This conversation is currently also underway at WikiProject Films. I'm proposing that we should populate Category:Films with every film article in Misplaced Pages. We have oodles of subcategories for subcategorizations of film, we have Films by nationality, by language, by director, by genre, etc... There are dozens of these sub-classificaitons. All of these are just fine categories and they should all be fully populated. At the same time, I'm saying that it is perfectly reasonable to also have a category called "films" where you could browse through all the film articles. In book form, this would be called an INDEX. If you look at a book with film reviews there will be an index of all films.

It is also great that we can offer all the subcategorizations like "films directed by John Ford" and "Australian films". So are these precise enough? The precision involved is putting each film into the subcategories that it belongs. I'm all in favor. On top of that I'd also like it to be in "films". If you don't want to browse through "films", you go over to "films by type" or "films by year" and find the subcategorization you are looking for. You'd have a choice. What we do now is we take a category that is an index of a subject and decide to break it into small pieces and turn the original category (the index) into a navigation category. Instead of that, we could just leave the original index alone and create a new navigation category. This way you could have a choice. Look at the big topic or look at the smaller subdivision.

Continuing with the "film" example. We now have dozens of those subcategories by film type or year, all populated, which is just fine. Over time, some of them have grown quite big. For example "Comedy films" has about 4000 films in it. There's a move to chop this category into small pieces and diffuse it. The stated reason is because it is too big. So there is three ways to go here. 1) You can chop it into pieces and diffuse it, 2) you can chop it into pieces and not diffuse it or 3)you can just leave it as a big category. If you diffuse it (#1), you loose the ability to browse through all comedy films. If you do subcategorizations and not diffuse it, you at least double all the categories for each film. Worse than that, people will start categories like "Comedy films by nationality", "Comedy films by year", "Comedy films by director", etc... You might end up with dozens of "Comedy film" categories for each film. This would add a tremendous amount of category clutter. So I'm advocating option #3. Just leave it alone and avoid category intersections. For every topic, we would designate the index level for the topic, and then (usually) only go one level below the index level. Both the index level and the sub-index level would be fully populated. "Films" would be an index level. Now I'm not advocating that all these films be included at higher "topic" levels. The topic levels are about topics and not about individual instances of the topic. This is the difference between Category:Film and Category:Films. Each article should be put in the most specific topic or index level category that it belongs. I have no problem with that. But for the specific instances, the films, books, people, etc... here's the distinction I'm making: At some point, we will be making sub-categories below the index level and when that happens, we should not diffuse the index category.

If you've followed what I'm saying thus far, I'm saying that the index categories, like "films" should not be diffused. I've already mentioned that the higher level topic categories are not helped by this template either. In those cases some of the articles belong and some don't and the template doesn't help. So the template is not appropriate for ANY category which has articles that are miscategorized. -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: What's the use of sub-categorzing if everything's at the main category? We might as well delete all subcategories. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep This template is necessary on Category:Australian people, which is always being replenished with new articles, when it should ideally contain only categories. ReeseM 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- What would be so terrible if we had "Australian people" and all the subcategories as well? It would add a single category to each persons article and you'd be able to see a complete index of Australian people. If navigation to the subcategories is difficult, you could create an additional navigation category that would hold the subcategories currently in "Australian people". -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep For the love of mike, keep. This template helps me maintain some semblance of sanity when managing Category:History of the United States and Category:American Civil War. jengod 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this template is helpful in Category:History of the United States. How is anyone supposed to understand what belongs and what doesn't from reading this template? Can any general purpose template explain which articles belong in this category and which belong in the subcategory? I'm working on a proposal to replace template like this one with more user friendly ones that help people understand what is in the category. I'd be happy if anyone would like to help. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Category types -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- This category is very friendly and people can use their own judgement. I trust them to do that, but you seem to feel that we need cast iron rules for the classification each article in a particular field. We don't, Misplaced Pages is organic and constantly improving. Choalbaton 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Samuel you keep repeating this claim that we only have detailed categories because of a collective memory of a technical issue from two years ago but it is complete and utter rubbish. There must be thousands of people who have contributed to moving towards a more detailed category system and most of us hadn't even heard of Misplaced Pages two years ago! We do it because we think it improves navigability. You are the one that is living in the past - the first days of the category system when it wasn't detailed because it was immature and frankly just crap. I remember when I first read Misplaced Pages, before I had an account, one had to use the search box to find most things because the category system was hopeless, and that is what I have been helping to fix. You know as well as I do that you are in a small minority on this matter and as far as I know you are in a minority of one in having such an extreme preference for vast categories. Please drop this hobby horse and move onto something more useful. Chicheley 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Chicheley 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You see this as a black and white issue and that is your right. I may be in a minority, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am wrong. You seem to think that having large categories will somehow make it impossible to have specific ones, and that is not what I am advocating at all, and it never has been. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Wantman has a point, I suppose. Nevertheless this template seems to be useful for categories that should only contain subcategories that get silted up with articles. Herostratus 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What everyone seems to be missing is that many of these categories get "silted up" because people want to have these categories populated. It is the natural inclination to have categories like "Films" populated with films! Why do we keep fighting the masses on this? I am talking about only categories named X where each article Y is an X. This does not include broad topics like Art, Science, American History, etc... Articles about topics should be in the most specific categories. If you look in "American history" all the subcategories and articles should be directly related to the broad topic of American History. It adds information to put a specific Civil War battle in a category about "American Civil War battles" and not in "American History". The article has a "X is a Y" relationship with the "Civil War battles" category. My point again, is that unlike our present situation, all the battles of the Civil war should be in Category:Battles of the American Civil War even if they can also be found in smaller subcategories. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be your natural inclination to have Category:Films directly populated by films, it is not mine. You do not speak for the masses, but only for yourself, and your views are eccentric as this discussion shows. Misplaced Pages has far too many films for that to make sense or be useful and in any case the contents of subcategories are the population of the parent category, albeit indirectly. Choalbaton 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they generally get silted up by people who don't realize that we have more specific subcategories for many things. For instance, there's absolutely no reason why any writer should ever be filed directly in Category:Literature, but people do that regularly. Not because it's expected or logical, but because they don't know about the more specific and more appropriate category. Bearcat 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above, but do something about the ugly lime green color. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - A template doesn't have to be designed to be useful for every situation. This one is for the specific situations described within it. This doesn't mean that every category must be diffused into sub-cats, just ones in which this template is applied. And one can always discuss on the related talk page. - jc37 07:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I really want to have a discussion about this. Even if this is kept, what can be done about it to make this template better, to better explain what should happen and why, to keep it from being applied wholesale to any category that gets large. Please, don't just say "keep" and ignore my concerns. I really think this is a serious problem and it will just get worse unless we address it. Also, I hope people will browse through German Misplaced Pages. I think they have a much better handle on this than we do. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The template is useful for marking populous, overly-braod categories. Category:Astronomy has one and needs one; most articles in that category should be diffused into subcategories. However, I agree with some Samuel Wantman's sentiments that the template needs to be edited so that it is simply not applied to any large category but appropriate categories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I suppose keeping this template because it does it can help us move to better categorization, but its use really needs to be limited to major "parent" categories that routinely collect new articles. Category:Microsoft is an example of where this template makes a lot of sense. If I had to guess, I'd say we have in excess of 1,000 articles related to Microsoft "stuff", spread across dozens of categories. If you have a look at the contents of the category now, it's picked up a number of articles that, while certainly related to Microsoft in some fashion, probably could use a better home. -/- Warren 11:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Samuel Wantman is quite wrong to suggest that this template orders people to remove all articles regardless of the appropriateness of doing so. It is perfectly clear that it actually simply requests that they remove them when appropriate. I am troubled by Samuel's apparent lack of trust in the judgement of this fellow editors. Choalbaton 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with trust. Please assume good faith. I'm trying to make the categorization system easier to use and easier to understand. In practice, many categories often get totally depopulated after this template is added. -- Samuel Wantman 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has a great deal to do with trust. I don't doubt that you are acting in good faith so your accusation is out of place. But I think you have misguided ideas about where we need to get to and a lack of trust in the ability of others to make the right decisions about how to get there. Choalbaton 07:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep "there is no technical reason that we have to break up big categories into small ones." Perhaps so, and some subcategorization is clearly excessive and would be best kept in the parent... but there is certainly a logical reason for subcategorization that aids readability and navigability. When such a concern exists, this template makes a lot of sense. SnowFire 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This template does nothing but encourage excessive overcategorizing, making navigation of categories cumbersome and tedious. - Gilliam (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I find this useful to mark large categories when there is a useful logical breakout to be made. This helps point out where there is work to consider. No one is forcing anything to be done, just suggesting the situation should be looked at. Hmains 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep wrt to the bolded part of the introduction, I like to be able to look for articles in small and sharp categories. Wimstead 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Having large categories divided into small, specific categories is one of the strengths of the category system, in my view. --Danaman5 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. My impression, as one of the patrollers of category:food and drink and category:foods (among other things), is that a lot of people put articles in the first potentially relevant category they run across, without looking to see if there is already a better, more specific category. That is different than people specifically thinking we don't need the subcategories. I agree that sometimes it would be very useful to see a flat, sorted list of all articles in all subcategories of a given category, or to be able to search all articles in a category and its subcategories -- but those issues ought to be handled by software. Humans ought to concentrate on categorization issues that can't be handled mechanically. :-) Dr.frog 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This template encourages people to make necessary refinements. Cloachland 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per many above. The JPS 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Categorization is always better served by filing people in the narrowest appropriate category rather than the general parent. There's a constant need to clean up things like Category:Television presenters or Category:Writers, where people who actually belong in subcategories like Category:British television presenters or Category:American novelists get thrown entirely too far up the tree by editors who don't understand how categorization is normally applied on here. There is, for instance, no practical or navigational benefit to having a single undifferentiated writers category that includes every single person on Misplaced Pages who ever wrote a book, regardless of their nationality or their literary genre; there is a lot of practical benefit to subclassifying writers by their cultural context and subject matter. Any category that could simultaneously include Margaret Atwood and Hamzah Fansuri, for instance, is defined far too broadly to be of any real encyclopedic value. A lot of categories thus do need regular monitoring for cleanup of this type, and I find it rather tiresome that some people continue to push the idea that duplicate categorization and/or pulling away from differentiating categories would be at all a positive development. If category intersections are in the works, then we can figure out how to revise our category scheme when that is in place; in the meantime, this is not the time to start imposing an as-broad-as-possible categorization scheme that is only effective or valuable when coupled with a technical change that hasn't happened yet. And furthermore, the use of general parents as "index" categories effectively vitiates the point of even having more specific subcategories. Once CI is in place, and subcategorization can be automatically handled by the server automatically searching for set intersections instead of through manual category creation, index categorization will make more sense, but as long as we still have to manually create a separate category for Category:Canadian writers, there isn't a useful reason to also add somebody to Category:Writers at the same time. So until CI is actually in place, keep. Bearcat 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have you noticed that Category:Canadian writers is no longer populated? It has been diffued into Canadian writers by type. Why can't I browse through all Canadian writers? What if I don't care if they write novels, plays, or poetry? I'm proposing that we pick a general and specific level for all these categories and stick with them. I got frustrated when Film directors got broken up into categories by nationality. To counteract that developement, I created Film Directors by language. At least I'd be able to look at all the English language film directors in one place. Now there is talk of dividing that category up. A question for everyone here: At what point do we say it doesn't matter how big some category gets, whatever size it is we're not going to depopulated it? Are we going to end up with Category:Poetry writers from Nova Scotia and Category:1967 American comedy films? Are these more useful categories for browsing than their parent categories? I don't think they are. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - What if people don't share your view about what level should be chosen? Why should we all go along with whatever happens to suit you when we have perfectly good policies in place already? Wimstead 12:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The acid test has to be how useful a category is to the reader. Some categories contain thousands of articles. In these extreme cases I find it hard to imagine who will browse through the category looking for related information - if useful subcategories can be created then these would be clear candidates for diffusion. Whilst it is possible to over-extend the level of subcategorization, I have yet to see this template applied to a small category which has unjustifiably tiny subcategories. Greenshed 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with SW on these matters, and also on leaving duplicate categories on occasion. Category:Anti-communists is another example - all it tells me is that anti-communists are of various nationalities, which I knew already. If the parent category listed all the articles in its subcats automatically (on the top page), that would be fine; or at least gave some idea of how many anti-communists are hiding in the various branches (or is it roots?). In some of these supercats one has dig down about 10 levels before finding an article - I use 'search', or google, not categories, to find anything. I expect to find anti-communists in Category:Anti-communists, not a list of subcats. roundhouse 10:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick, since I last looked an actual anti-communist has appeared. Hide him, he (or she) must have some nationality, or if not we need Category:Stateless anti-communists and possibly Category:Anti-communists whose nationality is open to some doubt. (There is a glaring lack of any Belgian anti-communists.) roundhouse 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The national categories can or should enable you to find those articles from the national people, politics and history categories, whereas if Category:Anti-communists was left in isolation far less people would be likely to find it. Wimstead 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. I came across Category:Anti-communists because there was a dispute about whether Hastings Banda was one (someone put Category:Anti-communists on his page and someone else removed it - I found a citation for this and put him back). He's now in Category:Malawian anti-communists, by himself. So Banda is not now grouped with anyone else, so I don't find any similar articles. Another example is Category:Malawian people - I would like to see who is included at one glance but I can't (there are only about 20 in there - it needs 20-odd clicks to see all the names - eg suppose I wanted to print out the names of those included). roundhouse 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in my earlier vote, showing a "flat" view of a category, or your suggestion of adding an annotation to indicate how many pages are children of a category, are software issues. Those are easy to fix mechanically because it requires only one fix to the software which can be applied to every category on Misplaced Pages. Putting articles in the most specific category possible allows for maximum flexibility of the software in customizing the category display for individual user preferences. But putting articles in subcategories does require human intervention and expertise for each Misplaced Pages article, and we should encourage contributors to add such information when possible. Dr.frog 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A flat "view" of a category would alter the whole discussion (as would intersections on the fly). I agree that both (essentially unions of subcats or intersections of supercats) are software issues, but have no idea how easy either might be. Many thanks for the terminology - it is exactly what I meant. (The relatively recent 'tree' view of cats was an advance.) Sorry - I missed your earlier comtribution above while glancing through - this is quite a long discussion, amongst many other long discussions. (And is an overwhelming keep, so my own vote is immaterial.) roundhouse 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Samuel makes some good points here. At the moment, the category system could go in one of two ways. We could (a) carefully categorise the most relevant points as single tags, and then combine them through intersection, or (b) overcategorise and then rebuild the lists using the category structure and hoping that all articles in subcategories are actually related to the categories several layers up. I favour approach (a), and deleting this category would help prevent overcategorisation. It should, in any case, only be used on genuinely large categories that can be rebuilt from the contents of their subcategories. I suggest using "what links here" on the template, and removing it where it shouldn't be used. That would help. Again, one of the major problems is not being able to point to the 'final' version of what we are talking about. If we could compare the two approaches for a small area, this might help. Carcharoth 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per everybody and their brother. As so many write, when, in the by and by, super duper software becomes available to do everything, it may just as easily become available for doing sub-category intersection, not a noticeably harder problem. Meanwhile, having smaller categories is not only more manageable, but more useful. Unmanageable data is just noise. AnonEMouse 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

- But what about here and now? Can you give me a list of all the earthquake articles we have? Can you give me a list of all the hurricane articles we have? If you look at Category Scan for a recent CfD (School massacres), you can select "show all articles" as the filter option, and get a reasonable list there. Category Tree, as that page says, has been implemented on Misplaced Pages, but "show all articles" hasn't. That funtions would really help, and is probably closer than Category Intersection. Carcharoth 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, in fact I can, but I'll need a clarification of the question. Answer me why~~, besides WP:POINT,~~ do you want a list of all the earthquake articles we have? Do you want to read an exhaustive, but necessarily brief, list of all earthquakes known to science? List of earthquakes. Are you interested in detailed coverage of recent earthquakes, that were most likely to be thoroughly covered by modern media, and dealt with by modern methods? Category:Earthquakes by century. Do you want earthquakes that hit the place where you live? Category:Earthquakes by country. Do you want to thoroughly peruse Misplaced Pages's detailed coverage of all earthquakes known to science? Well, then you're going to have to click around 20 subcategories - but then you're going to want to be reading hundreds of articles anyway, so I'm not going to apologize too much for making you read 20 more category pages in addition. AnonEMouse 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, as a reader the reasons are that I want to browse an alphabetical index of Misplaced Pages's earthquake articles. I don't want to read all of them, just look over a contents index and see if anything looks interesting. By the way, if a reader, and not an editor, had asked you this question, would you have said "Answer me why, besides WP:POINT, do you want a list of all the earthquake articles we have?"? As an editor, I would like such a list to help organise editing efforts on earthquake articles. I too can produce such a list, but not everyone knows how to do this. Take a look at how I've handled this at Category:School massacres. I've now done this for earthquakes, just to actually get something done instead of talking about it. See Category:Earthquakes. The edits involved are listed here. Such alphabetical index lists allow us to look at both the big picture (all articles) and the detailed picture (how to organise those articles). My method of generating an alphabetical index list involves using the Category Scan tool I linked too (though as a toolserver tool that suffers from database replication lag), but I'd appreciate it, as a matter of editor-to-editor courtesy, if you would share your methods as well. That way we can both work to improve the encyclopedia, instead of throwing needless WP:POINT accusations about. Carcharoth 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I apologise and withdraw the accusation. I still believe focused subcategories are more generally useful. AnonEMouse 16:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        Thank-you for the apology. On my part, I'm sorry if I reacted too strongly to your asking me why I wanted such a list. May I still ask how you generate such lists? Returning to the actual categorisation discussion, surely the ideal is for both methods of browsing to be available to the reader and editor - the alphabetical index of a selected grouping of categories, plus useful subcategorisation schemes? There is no need to force people into choosing one over the other. Carcharoth 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'll need to tread carefully to avoid having to apologise again! "...look over a contents index and see if anything looks interesting." is not a tremendously focused goal - can you really tell that much from a long alphabetized list of article titles? Which of these "looks interesting" to you: Balakot, Bhalgran, or Butgram? Personally, all I can tell is that they start with a B. Imagine the category "Earthquakes" with hundreds of titles like that. While I will accept that it would be somehow useful to you, I propose that you are a rara avis. How do I generate such a list? I'm a humble manual mouse, I click through subcategories for what I want. And yet, in 9 cases out of 10, for 99 people (or mice) out of 100, having subcategories is much more useful. AnonEMouse 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        I agree that long contents lists are often uninteresting and uninformative, but they can be useful to help keep a category area under control - "what's that article doing there??" kind of thing. The example here probably was too broad, and it also includes non-Earthquake articles because of the vagaries of the categorisation system, but seriously, any useful encyclopedia should be able to produce, instantly, a list of all its articles on actual earthquakes. That is not an unreasonable request. To be pointed at Category:Earthquakes is a start, but not enough. You also seem to miss the point about how both systems can be useful. Sometimes I think, hmm, I want such-and-such a category, and I go looking and find it. Othertimes I find the category I was looking for has been diffused into numerous subcats, and I have to rebuild the category I wanted by manually generating a list. Do you see the point I am making? People focus their interest at different levels, and we should provide the tools and options to generate categories and alphabetical indices at different levels, and with different levels of discrimination (between details and an overall picture). Ideally, the normal encyclopedia categorisation would be set at a compromise level reached by consensus, and then people can use tools to go beyond that. Either: (a) unify categories to generate a larger view, or (b) intersect categories to find articles common to both. Ultimately, both should be possible. Carcharoth 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I have nothing against keeping track of categories that tend to get overpopulated. However, there should be a list on a project page instead of a bunch of ugly tags on the individual categories. Karl Dickman 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Web browsers

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as redundant, given the pre-existing cats (Category:Web browsers). Aside from contributing to the template-crustification of web browser articles, what purpose does this serve? --AlistairMcMillan 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The category should include these articles and only these articles, so I see no use. -Amarkov _edits 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I concur. The template also could be percieved as an POV since it only covers browsers which are currently updated. --LBMixPro 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is more suitable as a list article. -/- Warren 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Template serves no useful purpose that can't be better covered by a category or list article. Kaldari 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - informative and useful on article for those web browsers. If I'm on the IE article, it would be quite helpful to have a link to Firefox and Opera (browser). As for the POV "only certain browsers" - that's solved fairly simply - only those that are notable enough to have an article ought to be included. -Patstuart 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleteper Amarkov
Delete per nom. Wimstead 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - templates and catagories have different uses, this template is appropriate --T-rex 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We already have enough lists of web browsers in List of web browsers and Comparison of web browsers. -- Schapel 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar-portal

The result of the debate was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

House cleaning — Template is completely unused and no edits were ever made Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c 08:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar-mini-nodiv/doc

The result of the debate was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping (CSD G6). — TKD::Talk 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

House cleaning — /doc page, base templates was deleted Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar-mini/doc

The result of the debate was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping (CSD G6). — TKD::Talk 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

House cleaning — /doc page, base templates was deleted Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, purely procedural. -/- Warren 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Old discussions

Completed discussions

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

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

Tools

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

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

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

Navigation templates

None currently

Link templates

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

Other

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

To convert

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

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

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

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject_Buckethead_task_force 2024 November 14 – WikiProject_Buckethead_task_force ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Merge target needs clarification. The target is a wrapper of biography, but the task force is under WikiProject Guitarists which uses Template:WikiProject Guitarists. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
My closing statement does not involve Musicians so as to avoid the wrapping issue. There was no consensus the last time around to merge into Guitarists and no indication in the latest TFD that the opinion had changed. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Replace with {{Political parties in the Netherlands}} and {{Defunct political parties in the Netherlands}} as appropriate:
- Template:Liberal_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands 2024 December 10 – Liberal_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Socialist_parties_in_the_Netherlands 2024 December 10 – Socialist_parties_in_the_Netherlands ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To substitute

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

None currently

To orphan

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

Template:Peso 2024 December 19 – Peso ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Influencers 2024 December 20 – Influencers ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Ready for deletion

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

None currently

Archive and Indices

Current discussions

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2024 December 27

January 10

Template:Obscene

The result of the debate was deleted by RyanGerbil10 per the consensus in {{sobscene}}'s deletion on January 7 2007. --ais523 11:36, 15 January 2007 (U T C)

Delete per nom. Obscene vandalism shouldn't be rewarded by special treatment. Also if a photo was not used, the template is just giving vandals new ideas. Textbook example of WP:BEANS. WJBscribe 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ignoring the fact that obscene vandalism should be treated like other vandalism, it is an insanely bad idea to explain to a vandal how to offend the most people. -Amarkov _edits 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, also I rarely see the template in use. Arjun 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Obscenities are blatant vandalism, so use {{blatantvandal}} instead. -- Kesh 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nim -Doc 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I encounter multiple time obscene language but I don't see a use to categorise obscene stuff elsewhere than in normal vandalism. -- Esurnir 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, way too serious for vandals; more encouraging than anything. -- Renesis (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom †he Bread 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this template is crap encouraging even more crap.--C J King 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - BlatantVandal is the same as this. --Tohru Honda13 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk 23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Duplicate. Arjun 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep! Including this template content only under Template:French overseas departments and territories denies the territorial claims of Madagascar and Mauritius, which are not recognised by France, and accordingly deletion will not reflect a NPOV. Would deletion of a seperate Canada template be justified because it is already covered in a North America template?--Wuyanxin 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. All of these islands are de jure French possessions. In fact, at least according to the articles, only the Glorioso Islands even face a counterclaim (from both Madagascar and the Seychelles, but the French have colonization and establishment history dating back to before 1900). I see no reason why the template structure indicated by Grcampbell would provide a POV issue. Serpent's Choice 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bread (talk • contribs)
~~Very Strong Keep~~ Comment Serpent's Choice comments and basis for deletion are inaccurate. As an example see the following quote from one of the articles "Tromelin Island was occupied by France in 1954, but it is claimed by Mauritius". And no one actually is resident on Tromelin Island! These islands clearly are just scattered islands in the Indian Ocean. To delete the template and allow the content only under the template of French overseas departments and territories is very clearly imposing the POV of the French claims over the POV of Mauritius and Madagascar. The template was established, and to delete it is most likely a violation of the NPOV principle supposedly for the only reason of reducing "template clutter". Err on the side of the fundamental NPOV principle and do not delete.Wuyanxin 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wuyanxin, you cannot vote twice. You may want to change it to Comment, as a further explanation of your vote. -- Kesh 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Comment Thank you Kesh, amendment has been made. This is clearly a fundamental NPOV issue. Further comment on how inaccurate Serpent's Choice statements' are: Of the 5 seperate articles on the 5 islands, 4 of the articles are very clear in stating that the islands are claimed by either Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles or Comoros. Therefore the only valid or reliable reason put forward to delete the template is to clear up "clutter", which most certainly should not over-ride a NPOV issue. Wuyanxin 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Wuyanxin RaveenS

Keep. Not all islands in the Indian Ocean are French territories.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

- Comment Actually, all islands within the Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean ARE French territories... Also, the Template:French overseas departments and territories actually states which islands are claimed by other nations, thus nullifying any point put forward by those voting keep. Also, the closing admin might want to look at Special:Contributions/Wuyanxin--Bob 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Grand Slam's comment brings up a point: any template of this name and title which excludes Diego Garcia and Kerguelen is at least misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Announced product

The result of the debate was delete. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I created this template to make a clear distinction between a "future product that may contain preliminary or speculative information, and may not reflect the final version of the product" (See {{Future product}}), and one about which all specs have been officially announced: "It may contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only." (see {{announced product}}). This is not necessarily template creep, but a very useful distinction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: That's not much of a distinction, Jossi. Reliable sources are absolutely essential in every single Misplaced Pages article. Also, it's completely unprovable that the information won't change before release... remember last year when the Macbook Pro was to be released, and the specs changed between announcement and release? That's why the future product template reads as it is. -/- Warren 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Deletionism is evil. CygnusPius 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - very different from {{Future product}}. Sfacets 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Very different" in what way, exactly? {{Announced product}} says that the article may only contain information from reliable sources, but this applies to all Misplaced Pages articles. {{Future product}} says that the article may contain only preliminary or speculative information which might not reflect the product's final version, but this applies to all announced/unreleased products. I would agree with you that the templates are very different if an article about a future product is allowed to contain information from unverified sources, or if an announced product can be definitely proven not to change at all before release. - 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I'd argue that this template is useful, and that {{Future product}} should be deleted (or renamed to {{Vaporware}}, except that it already exists) for the reasons you describe. Argyriou (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge to {{Future product}} or {{Vaporware}} Argyriou (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Identical in purpose to {{Future product}}. An article about a product which has been "officially announced", but is not yet shipping, by definition must "contain preliminary or speculative information and may not reflect the final version of the product" - it's a given that a product may change between announce and prduction. Plus, the wording of {{Announced product}} is unclear - if it's saying that the article is only allowed to "contain information released by the manufacturer, and other reliable sources only", then it's disallowing information about popular reaction to the product or media references to it, and there's no Misplaced Pages guideline against this. - Brian Kendig 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. A week ago (before the MacWorld Expo), there would not have been a template on a page regarding the idea of an Apple-made cell phone called "future product;" and it certainly could not have been labeled as an "announced product" because it wasn't announced! A second way to look at this: How can you have any verifiable information on a product that isn't announced? —Scouter Sig 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to {{Future product}}, or delete. What little distinction exists between the two is too affirmative. Either the sources are reliable and strong enough to stand on their own, and indicate that the product will almost certainly be released, or they're not, regardless of what the template says. No other template on Misplaced Pages gives an article a stamp of approval, and I don't see a reason to start. (and a nitpick: the current text says only that the article is officially released, which isn't sufficient to pass WP:NOT a crystal ball... Barabus TKR was officially announced, but its manufacturer was unknown before the announcement, so the announcement wasn't enough to say that the future release was almost certain to take place... NOT a crystal ball is more complex than that, and the assessment can change over time (eg. the TKR's ship date passed, and the company hadn't released any press reports for several months)) --Interiot 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and other reasons above. This template, where it is not redundant to {{future product}} (or having no template at all), is nonsensical. schi 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary, Future Product covers it. Misplaced Pages says "content must be verifiable" so this is just duplication. And I don't appreciate being told that only official information is allowed. Deletionism IS evil though. --John Lunney 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, even apple itself doesn't maintain this degree of certainty in its announcements. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And Jobs has stated that the current state of the iPhone is not final. AlistairMcMillan 21:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per schi. It's redundant, mostly, and it's absurd where it isn't. What possible reliable sources other than the company itself can exist for an unreleased product? -Amarkov _edits 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. As others have already said, this template has no meaningful distinction from the established future product template. Any product that hasn't been announced is by definition speculation, and thus doesn't belong here per Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Thus, this template serves no purpose, and seems to have been created solely to treat the iPhone differently from every other not-yet-released product. Redxiv 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Duplicates the function of {{future product}} with no appreciable benefit or distinction. No valid argument has been made that distinguishes this from the future product template. This doesn't have a snowball's chance of standing up to scrutiny. -- Kesh 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above -Doc 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Crystal-ball distinction between two crystal-ball templates. Alai 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to {{db-spam}}. —An gr 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Neo and Paleo Ideologies

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete; Hmm, it does seem like template creep to me. I'm not really too familiar with the subject matter (heh, I saw "Paleo" and I thought it had to do with palentology!), and after looking through most of the articles, which have some excellent navigational templates leading off the article, this seems superfluous. I'm interested in hearing a good counter-argument though. -/- Warren 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If it is listing neo- and paleo- ideologies, that would include, um, all of them potentially. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Could someone please explain/link "template creep?" I have not seen that phrase before today. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I use the term "template creep" as a variation of scope creep... it's the idea that we have too many templates that do similar things. I'm not a deletionist per se but I do think too many choices for templates can be overwheming for newer editors. -/- Warren 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

delete, the only unifying feature is a prefix used in the name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's pointless. —Per Hedetun (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Articles in the template have nothing to do with one another. At best it is irrelevent, but it is also likely to be misleading. — coelacan talk — 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I particularly agree with Coelacan. By listing together various ideologies that have nothing in common except a prefix in their name, this template can be highly misleading. -- Nikodemos 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Firsts in India

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that Dgies is interested in userfying, so the closing admin should probably move it to his userspace and delete the redirect. Picaroon 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Per the above. —Tox 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Astrotrain 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--NMajdan•talk 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This might make for a decent list article though... -/- Warren 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ibid. —Scouter Sig 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, very informative though, just not a template. Arjun 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Userfy to me. I will adopt it and convert it to a list article. —Dgies 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just planning on letting the links to articles stand as their own reference, and killing the ones that would be redlinks. Does that sound like a bad idea? —Dgies 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above If someone knows enough about it to change it into something better, we should keep it.--C J King 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

January 9

Template:Minor planet

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Depreciated template. Not used on any articles. Superceded by Template:Infobox Minor Planet. Mike Peel 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete from my view it looks completely unneeded. Arjun 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Template:Infobox Planet seems to be a relevant discussion. —Tox 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do what you will. Not much point keeping it if it's not used anymore. — Nicholas (reply) @ 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Superceded ages ago. Deuar 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:EditAdvice

Keep - fully agree that a 'real' message is always better, however this template, which is basically an extract of WP:MASTADON is a reasonable enough start. Addhoc 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. These templates are rarely used to inform new users of something they may not be aware of. They're most often used against good contributors as a form of "You have a demerit now!" A simple "You have one mark-down for being incivil" conveys the same message, but nobody would even think of having a template to say that. -Amarkov _edits 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I made a couple changes to the wording of the template, which I think help make it a little less confrontational. Of course, it's almost always better to write a personalized message to the editor, but if you don't speak English very well and you're dealing with a new user, I could see this template working. As for Amarkov's comment, people will find ways to accuse established editors of being uncivil regardless of whether or not such a template exists, and there are much more direct ways of saying so without crossing the line. -- Cielomobile 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
delete, it's non-confrontational to the point of being passive-aggressive. "Yeah I'm not going to say I think you're being uncivil, I'm just going to point out these guidelines *wink* *wink*" Civility notification templates, if we use them, have to be straight up honest. ("I don't think you were civil here, please try to keep these guidelines in mind.") Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I would feel more taken aback if I was a new user and someone left a directly confrontational message on my take page. This template is really meant for new users who don't quite know wiki-etiquette yet. -- Cielomobile 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Astrotrain 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - perfect example of why WP:TEMPLAR was created. -Patstuart 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's an essay, not even a guideline, much less an official policy. Plus, it just says that such templates shouldn't be used on the talk pages of experienced editors. We have templates like {{Npa3}}, which are more confrontational than this one. -- Cielomobile 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

VIA templates

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. —Phil | Talk 12:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pronunciation of Linux

The result of the debate was subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Subst and delete. Only used in two articles, and it's not information that's subject to later change, so no point in templating it. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Subst and delete per nom. It's not like Misplaced Pages will chrash if those two articles ever get out of sync... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Subst and delete. Shouldn't be included in Linux kernel anyway. Djiann 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Subst and Delete, yes not a useful template (why is it one?) Arjun 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Replaced usage of template in Linux to standalone text - template commented out in article. Did not change Linux kernel. Jkstark 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Serbian Football Clubs

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- I've already merged clubs from this template into the list. If anything, we should only create separate templates for the top 3 divisions in the country (Superliga,Prvaliga,Srpskaliga). // Laughing Man 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Astrotrain 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but because we generally use league templates instead of countrywide ones,not because of redundancy (or we could hardly justify {{2006 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}} and its numerous predecessors).Circeus 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, leaguewise templates and lists should handle this, not one large template. – Elisson • T • C • 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Terrorism in Kazakhstan

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. Baristarim 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The above user has no idea what he is talking about. Number one, I did not create "tens of terrorism categories." I created seven categories. Terrorism in Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Central Asia, and China. This is per the preexisting Terrorism in country categories that exist for Pakistan (Category:Terrorism in Pakistan), Russia (Category:Terrorism in Russia), India (Category:Terrorism in India), and many others, none of which I created. The Kazakh Government banned the KWP and GW as 'terrorist organizations operating in Kazakhstan' last year. I never chanegd the categories names, and I reverted Baristarim's edits to two pages one time each. It is not POV, these are internationally recognized terrorist organizations. If you have a problem with them being called terrorist organizations then I suggest you take it up on the article talkpages. This is obviously not POV or OR since, if you actually look at Terrorism in Kazakhstan, I have sourced the Supreme Court's recognition of them as terrorist organizations. KazakhPol 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This user then warned me about violating WP:3RR, after one reversion. User seems unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's basic policies. KazakhPol 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I didn't CfD the categories :)) This is about the template. Stick to the topic please. Baristarim 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Fundamental POV issues. Contravenes virtually every rule in the book. It is as though WP:Words to avoid#Terrorist.2C terrorism never happened. No attribution at all on the template which also fails basic WP:ATT guidleines etc etc. --Zleitzen 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong and speedy keep none of the above claims are even remotely true. If you look at Terrorism in Kazakhstan you will see all of the organizations in question are banned in Kazakhstan as terrorist organizations. I began changing this into a Template:Terrorism in Central Asia thing today, but that ran into a roadblock, this TFD. KazakhPol 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You have all kinds of people labelled terrorists with no attribution at all. Ilkham Turdbyavich Batayev is on your template as a "terrorist leader/captive" with no justification other than he was captured by US forces, placed in Gitmo and then released without charge. Even if they were described as terrorists attributed to some government or group, it still contravenes NPOV. For obvious reasons. It labels groups and individuals in a POV fashion that only shows one side of the story.--Zleitzen 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to "Alleged terrorism in Central Asia", or some such. It must be renamed, but I don't think deletion is needed. -Amarkov _edits 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh... please do not turn this into Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Muhammad al-Durrah. We have enough Misplaced Pages pages of such low quality. KazakhPol 05:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - And... why would POV warring be affected by the name? POV warring happens no matter what something is named. -Amarkov _edits 05:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    - No I mean about the use of "Allegations" in the title. Sources in the real world never refer to it as "allegations" but Misplaced Pages does in an effort to be politically correct. If the alleged allegations are questionable then that should be established in the article, or in this case the template, and not in the title. It's an issue of show versus tell. KazakhPol 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Oh, I see what you mean. The title didn't quite let me make the connection. It really does need to be renamed to "Middle East" or "Central Asia" or something, just Kazakhstan is weird. -Amarkov _edits 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        The thing is I was trying to rework this today when Baristarim interrupted me. The template is too big and clunky to remain in its current shape. Thanks, KazakhPol 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why cant this be covered under ] a category of Terrorism in Kazahkstan ?RaveenS 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was trying to change this is into a more general template on Terrorism in Central Asia when Baristarim listed this for TFD. As of now this can basically be covered with that category. KazakhPol 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Meaning "category" - not a template Wiki-speak. Not the meaning of "category" in general usage. If this template is going to be kept, it should be moved to "Militancy in Central Asia" or something. Baristarim 12:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete we should never be calling anything terrorist. It is inherently POV -Doc 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, with revisions I think the POV issues can be overcome through use of "alleged", etc. See List of terrorist organisations for a NPOV way of discussing groups accused of terrorism. At it's core, this template can be a good unifying navigational device for the various articles dealing with terrorism in Central Asia. Crocodile Punter 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you'd want it renamed to Template:Alleged Terrorism in Kazakhstan?--Doc 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He never said that and to infer that he meant this is inappropriate. KazakhPol 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Astrotrain 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Navigational templates are supposed to aid in navigation between related subjects. This template is pretty scattershot, and can't reasonably be included in all the articles it lists. People not familiar with how this kind of template should be done are encouraged to read Misplaced Pages:Navigational templates. -/- Warren 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Rename There is WP:RS sources for Terrorism in Central Asia. it is WP:N As long as individual articles listed under the template are written with WP:NPOV the template should stay I am also partial to renaming it militancy in Central asia or Political violence in Central AsiaUser:RaveenS 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The rename is not happening. The article/s only discuss those which are banned as "terrorist organizations." KazakhPol 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I no longer need this. This was a bad idea, not due to any supposed pov or OR issues, but because it is too clunky. It works much better as more specific, smaller templates. KazakhPol 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

January 8

Template:Pokefair

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are boilerplates to define them AS fair-use images. They can't work without rationale. - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

- keep, fair enough Tesuya-san. However I still think that in this case it is perfectly suitable to use a template to help speed along the process of rationalizing the individual species images, how many were released in D/P? As Night Gyr stated the piint of rational is the "individual consideration" given to each image. However all the 493 little images that adorn each species page are going to have the same rationale. Using a template for these images at least is justifiable due to quantity and similarity. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 16:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. While it's a little hard to endorse templating this, I don't see why this would be different from something just written out. -Amarkov _edits 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pagify, having a sample rationale for the wikiproject is alright, but people thinking they can get away with dumping a template on an image page and being done with it it without individual consideration goes against the whole point of a rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, the nomination for deletion intends to help make this most distinct. - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. There's a clear difference between templated licenses for images and templated fair-use justifications. This is only going to cause problems down the road if it gets any visibility, encouraging people that its "close enough" to use rather than actually putting the required assessment of circumstances into the justification. As proof, I suggest that this TFD be expanded to include the following two templates, which already transclude this one as their built-in justification. One "only" seems to encourage improper fair use, the other is also for wildly differing content. No idea at the moment what else might subst: this.
- Template:Pli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Khfair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Serpent's Choice 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The instructions for using Pli, in particular, are incompatible with proper fair use. Serpent's Choice 10:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fair-use rationale must be explicitly and intentionally defined for each image. Allowing contributors to bypass this process by applying a template is not a good idea. -/- Warren 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The template is being used to provide a fair use rationale for images that would all have basically the same fair use rationale. How would the fair usage of Image:ScreenshotPokemonEpi1.gif and Image:Pikachu.png be any different?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Timeline of the burrito

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to continuing expansion, template doesn't work as a graphical timeline. Moving to article Timeline of the Burrito. --—Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, procedural. This does make me wonder if we should be using single-axis timelines at all, when simple prose or HTML tables will suffice... I'd like to think the encyclopedia could retain full accessibility and usability without images. -/- Warren 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the nominator is correct, this hardly seems template worthy. Arjun 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the graphic; Keep the text. Burritos are very, very notable. And the history of the burrito is so hard to come across in so many places that this is an excellent resource. .V. (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tunefind

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam template for non-notable website, possible COI as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Obviously I have bias as I created the template. However, TuneFind is the only site with a user generated music index. It usually lists the music well in advance of it appearing on any 'official' sites and additionally lists music for shows without official indices. Prior to generating the template, most of the shows already had links but without any consistent formatting or text. A user - Vinjx - created a Misplaced Pages account on 2 January 2007 in order to remove all of the links that had been added over the previous 1+ year. Another user reversed that malicious deletion and then MatthewFenton removed the links again and proposed the template for deletion. Obviously I love the site and have, at times, been overzealous (adding links on artist pages) in the past - I suspect why MatthewFenton suspects COI. Finally, the templates does not meet any of the four criteria for deletion (aside from not being used after MatthewFenton deleted all instances). Ghouse 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Linkspam templates should rarely be used, and never for sites which are not notable in their own right. -Amarkov _edits 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:BoNM-PRC

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Author nom; considered POV by relevant wikiproject. --Ling.Nut 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's a barnstar, it doesn't have to be NPOV. -Amarkov _edits 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unused, no sign that anyone is interested in using it. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep yes it is a barnstar, it could be awarded to anyone at anytime, it brightens up our encyclopedia, very useful.--Rasillon 19:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bias Warning

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not useful since it doesn't identify a resolvable problem. All of our articles may contain incorrect or biased information. It's not clear that the problem is any worse in articles that are the subject of edit wars. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that something is subject to abuse (which applies to virtually everything on Misplaced Pages) is not a reason for eliminating it. And identifying resolvable problems is only useful for editors. There are some articles that will probably never be resolved and will go on being the subject of chronic and recurring edit wars for the foreseeable future. The problem with all of the current templates, and indeed the mindset of virtually everyone who contributes to Misplaced Pages (including the people who have commented above), is that everyone focuses only on the editors and the editorial process. This template may not be useful for editors, but it is very useful to readers. There is nothing else out there that tells the casual reader, who strolls through to get some information on a subject but has never even edited an article, that the information they are reading is about a controversial subject and may contain incorrect or biased information at any given point in time, and that they should check the talk page for more information. Point me to where that template is right now, and I will agree to delete this one.-Jefu 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- That page is at Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer, and is linked from every page on the site. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That is a general CYA disclaimer and contains nothing but information that should already be obvious. Where does it point out that an article is particularly controversial, subject to frequent edit wars and that the talk page should be checked?-Jefu 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    - It's not clear to me that being the subject of frequent edit wars makes an article more likely to be biased or inaccurate. In fact, I think, rather the opposite. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Other boxes that warn about potential NPOV issues address the content, not the actions of the contributors. It is a fine distinction, but an important one. Let better templates serve the purpose this one would aspire to. Serpent's Choice 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The existing {{NPOV}} works fine. -Amarkov _edits 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- That addresses neutrality, not accuracy.-Jefu 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  - {{Totally-disputed}}, then. Or {{Controversial}}, depending on what the issue is. Serpent's Choice 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    - {{Totally-disputed}} would indeed be my next choice, but it sounds more like a complaint about a specific issue that is intended to be deleted if and when that issue is resolved, rather than a general warning to the reader about the nature of an article. And I do not think that is a trivial distinction at all. {{Controversial}} does not work at all. It is clearly meant for the talk page and thus would not serve as a warning to the reader at all.-Jefu 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      - My issue with this template is that it seems to imply "The article contributors are being bad", which is unnecessary, however true it may be. -Amarkov _edits 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Del per avbove †he Bread 06:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. John Smith's 11:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, especially Christopher. There are other templates that do a better job of addressing an article's problems. -- Kicking222 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete in lieu of better alternative templates. TonyTheTiger 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
delete there are many better templates and this one is just not needed. — Arjun 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete with what everyone else said. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 07:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant with the standard NPOV template (as well as being a template which disturbs the reader). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, redundant template. -/- Warren 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, for the same reasons as Jefu. I interpret the NPOV tag as something that is used to challenge specific claims, whereas the current template would be a warning about articles which are prone to be perfectly NPOV one moment, and be edited to a substantially different non-NPOV version the next moment. FilipeS 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- This could happen to any article, should the template go on any article not currently protected? Users should be able to interpret the disclaimer well enough to understand someone may add bias to an article. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Jefu and Filipe as well as the fact that there is known history of pages being taken over by edit wars making it impossible for the person who trying to get a NPOV come away with erroneuous information ForrestLane42 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Strong Delete. There are numerous reasons why this template shouldn't exist. First, a reader reading Misplaced Pages should understand the risks of viewing an encyclopedia edited by the people, as Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer says. Second, putting this template on every page that's had an edit war, such as Japan, is uncalled for. If anything, articles that have had disputes are more accurate (oprhaned pagesa are more susceptible to POV). Third, this template is instruction creep. Fourth, who is to say what is controversial? Japan isn't, and it doesn't need a pastel box (I know this template has no color, don't respond) to scare off readers. All articles can be edited to a substantially POV version at any moment, we don't need warnings for pages a handful of editors think are "controversial". I end quoting this famous TFD: "If we have a medical disclaimer on all medical-related articles, we might as well put a legal advice disclaimer on all law-related articles...but that means that we should also put a general disclaimer on all articles, which is the whole purpose of having the disclaimers all in one place. The only disclaimer on wikipedia should be the spoiler warnings, because you don't know where they are, and they ruin things for you."-Frazzydeel. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 06:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

January 7

User:Miller17CU94/Userboxes/User PCD

The result of the debate was Deleted by admin Doc glasgow (author's request). Non-admin closure of orphaned TFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Another userbox with The Pussycat Dolls already created. Merged information of personal userbox with already existing userbox. Requested by author. Chris 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - requested by author. Chris 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Arsenal

Poorly named userbox template, duplicates an existing userbox {{User:BlueSquadronRaven/Userboxes/Arsenal}} and misuses a fair use image. Delete. Qwghlm 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Already exists in the userspace. --- RockMFR 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MSJapan 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I created it because I didn't realise there was one already available! Asics 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Created by mistake and the author requests deletion. Tagged {{db-authora}}. --ais523 09:48, 11 January 2007 (U T C)

Template:CMUArtsPittsburgh

The result of the debate was deletion as redundant to category. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Astronomical coordinate templates

The result of the debate was deletion of all but EqCoor templates. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added Template:Galaxy demo as well, as this is a fork of Template:Galaxy that was intended to demonstrate the AstroCoord template. Mike Peel 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The templates are not being used nor are they being actively maintained or edited. Also, based on previous discussions with the crator, I have the sense that some of these templates were "drafts" that he intended to delete later. Dr. Submillimeter 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep – I have put request to host the page similar to geohack on Wikimedia back in November 2006. There's no response yet, Admin seems to be very busy recovering data from some serious power/hardware failure in beginning of December. friendlystar 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If we can get something like that up and running, then that would be great. However, I still think the above templates should be deleted. First, there is no guarantee that such a system will be set up. Second, if it is set up, then we won't need both sets of templates (and we definitely won't need the galaxy demo page). Third, it would probably be easier just to fork Template:Coor and related templates when necessary, as opposed to modifying the nominated templates to work with the new system. Mike Peel 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to use EqCoor* templates, the rest is safe to delete. friendlystar 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that, so long as a warning is placed on the EqCoor templates saying that they are not currently in use, and that Template:RA and Template:DEC should be used instead. We can then migrate over to the EqCoor templates once the geohack-like system is set up. Mike Peel

Template:User serial comma:Usually

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Twas Now/Userbox/serial comma:usually in December 2006. This template is

redundant to another better-designed template
not used

I checked the back logs AND the 11 pages which returned on this Google search (ommitted results included). All of the resulting pages linked to the new template.

Twas Now 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RfD it. --Farix (Talk) 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- After reading the RfD criteria, it seems like it's not important whether it is deleted or not. − Twas Now 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:FC Copenhagen

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is copyright violation of the image and is not necessary, as it is only used on one page. ka la ha 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Weather 2

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cvg-workshop-nomination

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated for some time now. Has no incoming links except from a part of WP:CV that has been tagged as historical. ^demon 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as deprecated. --- RockMFR 06:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sobscene

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This implies that obscene vandalism is treated differently than equally egregious(sp?), but non-obscene, vandalism. It isn't. -Amarkov _edits 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and especially Amarkov. --Hab baH 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Other templates serve the purpose better.--C J King 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant and also adds a concern about WP:BEANS ("whoa, adding provocative pictures? I never thought of THAT!"). I see no need for a separate obscenity warning template. delldot | talk 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
delete per nom even more this template opens up a platform for politically correct, christian moralistic abuse Arnoutf 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Amarkov -- Esurnir 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there is also {{Obscene}}. 68.39.174.238 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Civil2

The result of the debate was delete just like civil1. If people are incivil, throwing templates around is not going to help. >Radiant< 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, TfD for Template:civil1, and fact that this is worded in a very inflammatory way for a level 2 warning. -Amarkov _edits 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep - I find this useful when a civil0 won't do. --Hab baH 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and Rename to level 3 per SYCTHOS below. --Hab baH 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Although I've never used this, I'm reluctant to delete it. But I know it won't stay. Xiner (talk, email) 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for new editors template:civil0 is probably enough, experienced editors may learn more from a personal message or won't learn at all. Arnoutf 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This template provides a civil way for an offended user to make their feelings known when an uncivil user repeatedly offends - especially if it is a personal, racial or religious attack. If it didn't exist, the offended user might also resort to being uncivil and escalate the conflict. I also suggest keeping the stop sign; add the smiley to Template:civil0 -- Aylahs 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete The object of rebuking someone for incivility is to calm them down; so speak nicely but firmly. Boilerplate is never going to do anything other than inflame the situation, and the temptation will always be to use it as a weapon in a personal dispute. If you can't even be bothered writing a real message, then you are certainly NOT the person who is going to successfully steer the offender in the right path. This things isn't going to enhance civility on wikipedia, is it? --Doc 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete throwing warning templates on an experienced user's talk page would only heighten the situation. -- Selmo 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename, as this can become an effective template if used correctly. However, a level 2 template with this type of wording may be too rough. Renaming this to level 3 or level 4 may be more appropriate. --SYCTHOS 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I just used civil3, which apparently has been proposed for deletion too. And I used it quite well. They're useful. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I just looked and Civil3 and Civil4 both currently redirect to Civil2. So deleting this will also have the effect of deleting those. --Hab baH 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant Delete - there is a problem with trolls using this to escalate a dispute. The threshold for usage is too low, at least with the NPA warnings, a meaningful personal attack should have taken place, however I've seen this template used in response to minor grumpiness. The template can and has been used responsibly, however at the moment, I honestly don't believe it's helping. Addhoc 22:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Everybody already knows that it's nice to be nice. If an editor is uncivil, they need constructive engagement to persuade them to take a different approach. An instruction to be nice is likely to be counterproductive. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I have recently had this thrown in my face, not by a person who wished to help, but by an arrogant fool who used it more like bait. Mind you, I consider him a tag noob, appearently he knows how to USE the tags, but he doesn't know WHEN to use them. Upon addressing him, he paints this in my face... This isn't the type of tag you want people to beable to dish out, the welcome to wikipedia is more prudent and nicer than being yelled at by some tag saying that you aren't nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.241.212 (talk • contribs)
- Um... you aren't nice. You were just blocked not that long ago. -Amarkov _edits 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Its useful - • The Giant Puffin • 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

January 6

Template:Magicnums

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

The result of the debate was delete —Mets501 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, navigation templates which have one article are useless, and a bunch of pages redirecting to one article is the same. -Amarkov _edits 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Amarkov. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bite

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

The result of the debate was CSD G7. I get the idea, folks - though a warning of this TfD would have been nice. crz crztalk 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary hampering on new page patrollers. This template harms Misplaced Pages as it only helps increase the pages for speedy deletion backlog. Cowman109 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete No need to make CSD more m:Instruction creep than it is now. If it's crap, it goes. That's what speedy deletion is about. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete If you are going to rebuke an established user DO NOT USE BOILERPLATE. It is patronising and inflammatory. Either take the time to write a message, or don't bother!--Doc 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete obnoxous and judgemental template, if people want users who come here just to create vanispamcruft to be welcomed warmly they can do it I guess, but I'm not going to. I'll stick to maintaining the quality of the project, which sometimes means deleting new articles. If someone wants to discuss this with me, a boilerplate template is about the absolute worst way to start the conversation. --W.marsh 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars, we shouldn't ABF and just stick a warning template on someone's talk page. If anything, a note should be personalized, asking someone to wait a bit, otherwise we're violating WP:BITE on the NP patrollers, defeating the purpose of the template altogether. --Rory096 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Regardless of the fact that boilerplate is really really annoying for established users to get, this is based on the questionable, at best, assertion that tagging an article for speedy deletion right after it is created is necessarily a case of WP:BITE, or even that doing such a thing is bad. -Amarkov _edits 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:State terrorism in Sri Lanka

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

The result of the debate was deletion, and to be replaced with Template:Sri Lankan Conflict. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source... Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. (unpublished meaning not published by a RS).

Strong keep There is no rule of law in Sri Lanka like other countries like UK ,Turkey,USA,India, etc atleast in there own countries.All killing are extra judical.In Sri Lanka over 65000 people have ben killed unlike other countries neither soliders or government backed thugs ,paramilitary,JVP ,LTTE none of them have been tried in a court of law and sentenced in less 0.0001% cases.This is what I consider state terrorism.Now Look Col Karuna was the independent head of the East and carried operations against Sri Lanka and was responsible for killing the East.Now Sri Lankan government should either offer an amnesty to Karunaif it wants to use him or arrest him and try him in a court of law.

Delete or Rename (People Lets Compromise ) No respected agaency has deemed the actions of the Sri Lankan government to be of terrorism. There is a blurry line as to who decides it, but it is plain fact that no Misplaced Pages editor has that power. With power comes responsibility. Be Bold, but use that with responsibility. Do not create absurd topics arbitrarily. But unlike our politicians let us resolve this through dialog Dasiths 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- - I am willing to compromise, how to we get ahead any suggestions for a rename or a restruture of this template ? RaveenS 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This template was nominated few months agao and a massive sock puppetry was uncovered because of it. Closing admin should see all the arguments. This is a case of WP:POINT. More to come. Thanks RaveenS
- - No independent organization such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, or national government has ever accused Sri Lanka of "State terrorism"." is patently false .Independent Organizations and experts have regularly called Sri Lankan government actions "state terrorism," here are some links, including Asian Human Rights Comission, (three of them from a BBC documentary with experts who label Sri Lankan government actions as state terrorism) ,,,,,. In effect wikipedia articles can be written in an WP:NPOV about State terrorism using WP:RS. This is a template that links related actions by state actors in Sri Lanka much like a list but more.Whether linked articles should stay or go is caled editing, no need to delete it. Thanks RaveenS

Delete terrorism is a loaded POV term. --Doc 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry this is about the template not about Terrorism. If your argument is about terrorism as a term then it should be addressed at the correct XFD. Thanks RaveenS 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, just to balance the random accusation of WP:POINT. And, of course, the fact that "State terrorism" is an extremely biased term, which should never ever be used in describing specific events. -Amarkov _edits 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Terrorism along with State terrorism are nuetral terms just like Genocide and Holocaust. Again we are here citing from credible sources per WP:RS if a WP:RS or sources say an event is State terrorism then what policy in Misplaced Pages prevents an editor from writing about it ? Thanks RaveenS 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That's incoherent. A reliable source can still be POV. I'm guessing that the goverment of Sri Lanka would have a different POV. We can record that 'according to x, this is terrorism' but we can't declare that it is. That;s never neutral. Can I create 'State terrorism in India/Pakistan/USA'? I bet I can find reliable sources that would call some of their official acts 'terrorist'--Doc 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Again This is about a template not about State terrorism further WP:NPOV alone cannot be used to make deletions in XFD.RaveenS 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Oh Raveen you made that mistake again. Theres a problem regrading WP:RS in your template. You should read the Iwazaki's argument. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep as per RaveenS. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Would either of you care to explain why this is WP:POINT? Or how the fact that there was massive sockpuppetry is relevant at all? -Amarkov _edits 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Because the above nominator has an edit history that shows he is against most the of the articles linked by the template. More with evidence later RaveenS 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    - When? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this template is irreversably POV, as it looks at the whole Tamil-Sinhalese conflict from only one side. Also see Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Khoikhoi 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again POV alone us not a strong reason to delete content from wikipedia. May be you can improve the templateRaveenS 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per RaveenS --Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Argh. Let's assume the nominator is indeed doing this WP:POINTedly. Even then, you have 3 people saying to delete it who are NOT making a WP:POINT, so you really can't just keep it per WP:POINT. -Amarkov _edits 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sri Lankan government's poor human rights record needs to be highlighted.59.144.31.185 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete The whole template is WP:HOAX and WP:POV..Misplaced Pages has been used for cheap LTTE propaganda and the incidents mentioned in the template fully confirmed this.Lets takethis as an example..A Tamil girl was raped by some Army soldiers and the Government filed a court case and sentenced them to death..But the editor still calls this "state terrorism" !! Isn't it obvious the editors hidden desire to defame the Government of Sri Lanka no matter what good they do ?? --Iwazaki 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep Sri Lankan government has done nothing since 1983 to improve its record it has worsened in recent times220.226.140.53 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete: This template contains potentially libellous and unsubstantiated allegations against a sovereign government which violates wikipedia's NPOV. This template is currently being abused as a banner advertisement which can be pasted on pages regarding sri lanka so that the government can be defamed by pro-eelam and LTTE supporters around the world. For example take the following links in the template,

Taraki_Sivaram - His murder is still unsolved, and there is no proof to substantiate that he was killed by the government. The LTTE itself is accused to have been behind the murder.

N._Raviraj - the LTTE is accused of the murder, and there is no evidence to suggest a government hand in his killing. Again there is much controversy regarding the perpatrator of the killing.

All the above allegations of state terrorism are examples of original research, are completely unsubstantiated and should be deleted.

Very Strong Keep Sinhala army has a poor record and its crimes are encouraged by the Sri Lankan state.This is state sponsored Terrorism Erodeguy 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Possible Single purpose account — Erodeguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Kerr avon 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep The template is an excellent model for other pages dealing with similar issues to emulate.Inclusion or exclusion of material should be taken on a case-by-case basis.After a cursory, random examination of several of the pages, i would say that most of the material is strongly backed up by neutral, reliable sources like Amnesty International and other human rights groups.Some material, however, should be removed;for instance, the Krishanti Kumaraswamy case is clearly not classifiable as "State Terrorism", and has no place in the template.Most of the instances, however, are clear instances of state terrorism.Those people here protesting the page's existence are clearly pushing a particular point of view based on political disputes rather than Academic rejection, and their opinions should therefore be marginalized as inappropriate for Wiki consideration.Stone put to sky 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY Dear stone, Its not only Krishanti Kumaraswamy, all the rapes mentioned in the template can easily be categorised as WP:HOAX.Look atthis..Not a single citation is given but editor still have it in this template..Clear indication of his WP:POV,isn't it ? When a soldier committed a rape, how can we categorize it as a "State Terrorism" ?? There was an incident here in Japan ,where an US marine rapped a girl from Okinawa. Can some one call this a "State Terrorism of The USA" ?? If a Chinese soldier commit such a crime ,can you categorize it as "State Terrorism"?? The desire of the editor is quite obvious..When ever a rape happen in SL he's going to have it in Misplaced Pages under the "State Terrorism".Can you make any sense out of this ?

Also, please remember ,most the cited sources are far from being neutral..There are sites such as "Tamil Nation" ,"Tamil NET","Sangam " ,"Tamil Canadian"etc..These are extremely PRO LTTE sites !!

The whole template can be easily rejected for its failure to keep the Academic Standard of Misplaced Pages..Thanks--Iwazaki 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete As I have argued many times before with the keepers of this flame: colleagues RaveenS, Travb and Stone, this is not the way to present contested material. It renders events in an inherently POV fashion by its title and linking of material. Leading to a constant battle. There is a perfectly acceptable and peaceful way to present such material so that it adheres to WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NOR. Far more controversial material than this has remained rightly untouched and undeleted before, because it was created within policy. This isn't within policy. At best, the inference of guilt is tacit, at worst it is shoved down our throats without any counterpoint or attribution. --Zleitzen 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- - Again as requested countless number of time assume good faith WP:AGF and no personal attacks WP:NPA keep discussion to the template not to editors. ThanksRaveenS
    - Good grief. How on earth is the above a personal attack RaveenS? --Zleitzen 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Because Misplaced Pages editing is not about editors, it is about the artcles. Make your case againsts the template not about editors. There are other avenues for it not an XFD. Thanks RaveenS 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep After a random examination of several of the pages, I also have the same opinion that most of the material are strongly backed up by neutral, reliable sources like Amnesty International and other human rights groups. DoDoBirds 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Possible Single purpose account or sock puppet - user:DoDoBirds, contribs, has made few contributions to wikipedia and his account appears to be used primarily for voting in AFD's and TFD's.Kerr avon 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete: Per nomination, Iwazaki, Kerr avon. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 15:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Rename~~ Changed to weak keep per rename - "Alleged State Terrorism" or something. The LAnkans call the LTTE's actions terrorism/militancy and the LTTE calls the lankans actions "state terrorism". Things like Black July definitely belong though.Baka man 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- - So if renamed you will vote to keep ? RaveenS 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    - It was sensibly renamed "allegations" after the last tfd fiasco. This was changed by someone. That someone was you, RaveenS.
    1. Almost none of these acts have been labelled state terrorism by any notable source. Certainly not by Amnesty who never use the term in their reports, despite what an editor writes above.
    2. Even if some group did describe them as "State terrorism", that is not a universally agreed view. Thus the template, which cannot carry different views, is inherently POV. Favouring one view against another. Therefore it must be deleted despite your best efforts to propagandize these issues.--Zleitzen 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    - - You are persoanlly attacking contributers and remember this is wikipedia we have rules and those rules are WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Please dont be selective in you approach to application of wikipedia rules. Thanks RaveenS 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        Zleitzen I am not "propagandizing" in any way or form. In fact I am making this as NPOV as I possibly can.Baka man 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        Bakasuprman, I was writing about RaveenS. Who eventually changed the title to "Allegations" after a long protratcted dispute to remove the template. But apparently RaveenS went back on this recently and changed it again. Hence yet another protracted dispute. By the way, none of what I have written here contravenes NPA - I've merely stated the facts.--Zleitzen 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        Comment You are wrong in your haste to attack fellow wikipedians. I did not change it to Allegations initially, it was changed by different user. see . I changed it to Attributed later on. Not only have you violated WP:NPA repetedly against me but also Wp:Civilby terming my edits as despite your best efforts to propagandize. I demand an apology. Thanks RaveenS
Very Strong Keep Strong Independent sources back up everything that is said in this article, as well, "Terrorism" is not an abstract concept that only despots can use to accuse their political opponants of to win sympathy and the right to abuse human rights, it is a very clear cut, and sources do substantiate it in Sri Lanka --Sharz 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong KeepI am also the same opinion of Sharz. "Terrorism" is not an abstract concept that could be only utilised to accuse the enemies in war to win sympathy and the right to abuse human rights. Rajsingam 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Being of the opinion that a bias is neutral does not make it neutral in fact. -Amarkov _edits 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete ~~Or Rename~~ The name of the template is undeniably POV, which breaks many wikipedia rules. The articles in the template are already very visible to most of the readers without the template. The template needs big clean up it contains name(s) of individual(s) where there is not even an article exist.As some of the editors have suggested, to call some of these acts as State Terrorism is Original Research (eg:- the Forced Disappearances section--how would you know if it is forced, unless you were watching?

- I missed to read Kerr avon's comments. I change my opinion as per him. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Sri Lanka uses death squads in the war against JVPand Tamils Kandyboy 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Single purpose account — Kandyboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kerr avon 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disallow for articles, or delete, if that is not an option. We're just not ready yet. Currently, even much less contentious Sri Lanka conflict related issues habitually create fierce revert wars, so I think it would only reduce our chances of getting anything done here. This question can be revisisted once we achieve more agreement on easier issues. — Sebastian 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You mean remove contentious articlesfrom the template ? RaveenS 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Despite the wide raging political views expressed here, I'd just like to point out that no one has as yet been able to refute what I said in the first sentence of this nomination, which was

No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism".

Comment The above user requested to everyone who voted "keep" here for reasons to show notable independent sources for "state terrorism", I like to provide the following sources:

Comment- Seems Rajsingam didn't understand snowolf's comment. He told No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism".
Sri Lankan State Terror: Through the Eyes of a Dissident - Oh not the someones opinion Raj. See this, Cameron Walker: Sri Lankan State Terror Monday, 30 October 2006, 12:08 pm, Opinion: Guest Opinion.
"It's state-sponsored terror in Sri Lanka" - The Hindu Special Correspondent reporting from Tamil Nadu about a really that conduct by one of the South Indian extreme pro LTTE party, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam against Sri Lankan Government. So still you think that this is independent?
Stop State Terrorism in Sri Lanka - This is an online petition that holding only one vote.

Even it has 100,000 votes Raj it cannot categorized as INDEPENDENT.

SRI LANKA: Featured Articles: State Terrorism - This article was retrieved by the "SiberNews" that highly regarded as one of the pro LTTE online news media. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 07:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply It's not the organisation that matters a lot, but the bottom line of the truth and it can be from anywhere reasonably.Rajsingam 07:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Read this first Raj. Hope you would be notice the forth key policy, Avoid bias. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply Thanks. I read, but it's very difficult from the available criteria to define an information source whether it is biased or not.Rajsingam 08:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I restate that this template is being used as a banner add to defame the sri lankan government. Take Taraki_Sivaram for example, there is no evidence whatsoever that the sri lankan government was behind the killing (see the controversy section), with even the former LTTE commander Colonel Karuna stating that the LTTE was behind it, yet when we go to the article we have the template in question stating blodly "Allegations of State terrorism in Sri Lanka", which gives the impression that the sri lankan government killed Sivaram which is blatantly false. This shows that the template is maliciously being used to defame a sovereign government using original research and as such should be speedilt deleted to avoid further controversy.Kerr avon 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Japanese Blitzkrieg in Korea

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not being used and the title is complete nonsense. --Wikimachine 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Moveto2

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

January 5

Template:Campaignbox Chungju Campaign

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not being used. --Wikimachine 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not necessary. Xiner (talk, email) 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Just because a template is not being used does not automatically qualify it for deletion.--C J King 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there are more generic templates for the same job. >Radiant< 13:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:wdefcon

The result of the debate was speedy kept per my lack of understanding _→AzaToth 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As heard from people, I have got the impression that this template is redundant and obsolete, thus qualify for deletion. _→AzaToth 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I find this very useful when determining where to allocate my wiki time. With lower levels, I can devote my time to de-orphaning articles or other more advanced tasks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep -I feel that it is very useful for checking my watched pages when vandalism levels are high. Big Boss 0 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per EVula. No valid reason given for deletion. -- Kesh 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Despite AzaThoth's rewording of the deletion request, there is still no valid reason given for deletion. -- Kesh 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep, as Wikipedians on IRC are not the only ones with opinions. Not a very strong nom, and I find this template useful. –Llama man 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep- per I don't like it-"incredibly stupid" is POV. --TeckWizContribs_@ 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep per Chrislk02 - if it's quiet, I'll find something creative to do, if there's a lot of vandalism, I'll fire up VandalProof and keep an eye on what's happening. This MfD wiil do nothing but piss off more people and make IRC even more unpopular than it already is. IRC is an incredibly useful tool for assisting in the improvement of Misplaced Pages but if people carry on with this sort of stupid shit, nobody is going to respect any editor or sysop who can be found on IRC. Total and utter shoot yourself in the foot job. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per all the great reasons. It's NOT redundant OR obsolete...it's updated 5-10 times a day. P TO 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete (and why on earth should this nomination be speedily closed, just because an IRC channel and a template has mobilised all the fans of this?) this is a hang over from the worst of the CVU-paramilitary days and is well passed its sell-by date. Vandalism isn't something to be 'fought' with silly flashing lights but dealt with simply by reverting and blocking. We don't want to allow vandals to present themselves as a serious threat, nor an 'enemy' (see WP:DENY). This isn't a war-zone it is a serious encyclopedia.--Doc 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. What exactly is wrong with it? It's pretty clear that a lot of users typically involve themselves in more than one task. If I see the defcon to be at 3 or higher, I go on recent changes and fix vandalism. If it's 1 or 2, I usually do other things like work on articles and go to AfD or do other chores. --Wafulz 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't hear about it from IRC (which I'm almost never on). I found the TfD from my admin page, where it is one of the several handy items I use to help administer Misplaced Pages efficiently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That's my point. We should discuss this. But, naturally, the fact that this is a template that its supporters all like and watch means it will attract a disproportionate number of supporters to this debate. That does not allow you to get a 'speedy keep' before the rest of the community gets its say. The call for 'speedy' is without any basis or reason whatsoever. The question of deletion or not we can discuss over the next number of days.--Doc 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - What I meant was that I don't understand your motive for deletion. Also, from my understanding, speedy keep can be applied to faulty nominations, such as this one where the nom has not said why the template is either redundant or obsolete. --Wafulz 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Doc, I have to say I'm surprised at your tone. To dismiss those who disagree with you as mere fans strikes me as elitist or worse. Intemperate language is no reason for anyone to agree with you. TfD tagging a template watched by many Wikipedians is enough to guarantee a strong turnout of those who find the template useful. Fans of silly flashing lights notwithstanding, there seems to be plenty of support for this eminently useful template. --Ssbohio 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment I'd like to point out that, at the time I called for Speedy Keep, the reason for deleting it was entirely substandard (as it is, I still find it wanting). If you can make an argument for its deletion without trivializing me as some loony fan boy, that'd be just swell. I don't see how it is obsolete, since I (and several others) use it as a guiding star, of sorts, for what we should pay attention to the most; when we're at 4 or 5, I focus more on article work, but any time we're above that, I usually focus more on blocks/deletions (and specifically any note saying "admins needed at WP:soandso"). Please present an alternative to the template, and I may reconsider its obsolescence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - Actually, Doc, I find the template to be silly and find it rather unnecessary. However, I still voted Speedy Keep because there was no reason given to delete it besides I don't like it. The proposed deletion gives no reasoning besides "a few people say it's obsolete." Despite my feelings about the template itself, the vote seems rather obvious to me. -- Kesh 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. I check this template on my user page to gauge whether I should apply myself at RCP or elsewhere. --Wafulz 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep wow, have you noted how many uses use this template and its various others. I always to a quick check of the guage whenever I am off to vandalfight. It is extremely helpful to me and to countless others. — Arjun 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per Evula. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid. There may well be good reasons for deletion, but the nominator has not given them. And it is time to start thinking very carefully about Misplaced Pages and IRC. Moreschi 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've given good reasons. It glorifies vandalism and trivialises wikipedia.--Doc 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep so long as it is useful, which it is. Prodego 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Very useful, warns me to revert vandalism.--�PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would really like to know why this template is deemed to be redundant. --Sagaciousuk 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. Ineffective. Two obvious spelling errors went uncorrected for one hour: . Either nobody saw it, nobody noticed the mistake, or nobody felt moved to correct it. Whichever the case, I don't think this template is accomplishing its objective. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument for the template's deletion is based on the fact that there was an uncorrected typo? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep An impression of being redundant is an awfully weak & weasel-worded reason to delete. If the nominator isn't certain there's a reason to delete, then why should anyone delete based on this nom? Additionally, this template is useful to the administration of the project. I check it when I come on and use it to decide whether to edit or patrol for vandalism. Vandals will not disappear if we remove this template. In short, no policy basis cited to support deletion of this useful template, so speedy keep it. --Ssbohio 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep Very useful for allocating time between "patrol" and "actual work". --science4sail con 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Incredibly useful. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - not exactly everyone has access to IRC, and this template allows excellent coordination of counter-vandalism activities, such as by mobilising and pointing vandalfighters in the right direction during high/topical vandalism periods, and directing admins to WP:AIV and CAT:CSD whenever a backlog builds up. Despite living in the wrong country, I was able to help out when that Colbert Report/Elephant stuff hit the fan, because I found out about it from wdefcon. CaptainVindaloo 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per previous discussions. Zsinj 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I find it very useful for knowing when vandalism levels are up. I tend to work more on spelling and other housekeeping chores. When vandalism levels are up, I like to know and respond. --Pigman 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongest Keep there is Wdefcon is INVALUEABLE to rc patrollers and vandal fighters. KeepKeepKeep! --B ezking 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Default to keep per complete lack of any convincing reasons on either side. -Amarkov _edits 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Why are we going through this again when a recent TfD resulted in a resounding Keep? Again, this template is incredibly useful. I check it regularly to see when I should fire up VP and join the CVU on active patrol. I especially appreciate, per CaptainVindaloo, that the template can be easily updated and customized to direct editors and admins to where their efforts are most needed. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I find the levels to be useful. I don't usually do vandalism patrol, but when the level is elevated I often put my hand in. So this template helps me. Herostratus 02:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Contradict-section

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete {{Contradict}} can be used to get the same content as this template. –Llama man 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Redundant. --Wafulz 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a good reason not to replace with {{Contradict|section}} so people don't have to waste their time finding the other with parameter? -Amarkov _edits 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I added a new parameter to {{contradict}} so now this template is redundant. the {{Contradict|section}} you mentioned was the parameter I added.--NMajdan•talk 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Redundant after revisions. TonyTheTiger 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:GW characters

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant with generic {{Infobox character}}. Cache load, consistency, etc. Same reasons as {{HouseCharacter}}, which was TFD'd on 29 Dec --The JPS 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest there is very little information in them, and it gets repeated in the article, so you might as well delete them, although keep the images. ISD 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Only ~10 mainspace transclusions, and {{Infobox character}} is much more informative. The character's name, occupation, and actor should be expected to be mentioned in the main content of the article, anyway. –Llama man 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I seen no advantage to this over the standard character infobox. -Amarkov _edits 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:toppostusertalk

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed to delete upon further consideration. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Force people to top-post in a system with builtin bottom-posting, strange... _→AzaToth 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep There's nothing wrong with it. Many times new users/anons will post at the very top above the first heading and this just asks them to not. Koweja 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Er, this says to post at the top. Xiner (talk, email) 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Koweja. Quite a few users have had a fair share of vandals/newbies leaving new messages at the top of user talk pages and not putting headers on them. However, maybe the template should be moved to a clearer name, as the current one is pretty confusing. –Llama man 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it currently says post at the top This turns to keep if its corrected to say post at bottom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it currently stands. It says (and has always said) to post at the top, which makes no sense (nor do the above keep !voters' rationales). -- Kicking222 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Contradicts the way MediaWiki works and so is likely to cause (harmless) confusion. There's no reason a user cannot ask to have new messages at the top, but they should probably just be educated to not use this template. —Dgies 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Bluntly, is it really hurting anything? If there is one stating "post new messages at the bottom," what's wrong with having a template that says to post them at the top? One may wish to simply have new messages posted at the top, to prevent having to waste time going to look at the bottom. If one should be deleted, then the other should be, in turn; such a talk page rule (post new messages at the bottom) should be well-enforced, if people are really and truly bothered by this template. BishopTutu 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as said, several keeps here seem to not be reading it properly: it says to post at the top, not the bottom. And to require users to post at the top counter-policy is both confusing to established users and horribly disorienting to non-established users. Delete. -Patstuart 17:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:YouTube user

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

delete - non notable Youtube userpage spamming template. --Illio5f 14:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. YouTube is a notable site. It's already quite well-known, so I wouldn't call it spam. There is also a somewhat weak and confusing nomination ("YouTube userpage spamming template" could mean it's spammed on Misplaced Pages userpages, spammed on mainspace articles with the link leading to the YouTube userpage, and probably more things). –Llama man 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Aren't we supposed to avoid YouTube links? Besides, it's not used on any userpages. It's only used on articles, which makes it a tool for spamming. P TO 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Links to Youtube have been controversial and are deprecated because Youtube does not habitually provide copyright information and contains tons of copyright infringements. This might mean Misplaced Pages becomes liable for contributory infringement of copyright. It should certainly not be encouraged. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Links to YouTube should not be universally discouraged, but linking to a YouTube userpage is rarely needed. However, the current usages of this template seem fine from both notability and copyright viewpoints. -CarelessHair 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Initially I thought that this was a userbox, which I would Strong Keep, but if this is actually meant to be transcluded in mainspace, delete it. If the article subject is solely notable in the context of YouTube, like lonelygirl15, definitely include an external link to there, but we don't need a template to do it. Gracenotes § 22:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as un-necessary.--cj | talk 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unncessary. Xiner (talk, email) 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--C J King 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary template that could be simply typed into the page. This isn't what template space is for. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is useful to standardize the form of certain external links if we have a legitimate need for a lot of them. In this case we only need the link when the subject is notable, and they have an official/authorized account on YouTube. That is probably pretty rare. Otherwise this will just encourage NN subjects to engage in self-promotion. —Dgies 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - what the heck is wrong with it? If we have a YouTube users, then creating a link to their site is something we'd be doing anyway in the article. This just makes it easier. -Patstuart 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cocktail-expand

The result of the debate was Deleted by admin Alai (per too-many-*FD-listings-to-mention). Non admin closure of orphaned TFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

DELETE - I have listed all the articles in the Project to-do list and removed this template from all articles. It is ready for deletion. Thanks for giving me the time to complete the work. :-) --Willscrlt 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Move to user subpage~~ - First, let me state that I am not (yet) familiar with all the terms that were brought up as reasons to delete these. I will do so quickly, but let me explain a few things, and hopefully we can fix these rather than delete them outright.

These are all part of a massive cleanup project the WikiProject Cocktails is undertaking. It started in December and the cleanup project ends February 28th. At the very least, please do not delete these prior to that date. It has been soooo much effort to help categorize and tag all the articles, this would set us back terribly and just be devastating to the efforts of a small, but growing number of people who are helping to improve these broad section of articles. We have been making real headway, and these helpful tags and the related categories have been at the heart of organizing our work. If we did something wrong (and I'm sure we did since it's up for discussion here), please give us a chance to fix it.
The normal expand template does nothing to alert members of the WikiProject Cocktails that an article is in need of expansion. The tag we created does that by listing it in a category that is easy for project members to locate and use. This really helps us organize our efforts.
When I started this whole initiative back in December, I was fairly new to editing at Misplaced Pages. I have learned a lot since. I am flexible, and do like to follow standards. If something doesn't work, or if I do something wrong, I change and self-correct. I see that most WikiProjects use some form of categorization within the WikiProject Banners they place on talk pages. I'm completely fine with changing and converting the (apparently bad) system we use now to something like that, but if you just delete these outright right now, you will make that soooo very much more difficult to do.
These are not random templates and categories that were created on a whim. Each one was well thought out, and attempting to do so within the "proper" ways of doing things here. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages has more guidelines and policies than the average well-meaning Wikipedian can possibly hope to learn in a short amount of time. But that does not give us an excuse, but I do ask that you give us the time to fix things.
If there is a better way to meet our goals and fall within established guidelines, please advise me. Then please give me time or help us swap out the currently marked articles to the new method so we can be within compliance.
Thank you for your consideration. Now I'm off to go read up on several policies of which I was unaware. *sigh* --Willscrlt 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close/keep Faulty nomination, belongs into TFD. CharonX/talk 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know this is a template, but I was trying to keep it together with the similarly listed Category:Cocktails (expand) below. ~ Amalas rawr 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTE, this was MOVED from WP:MFD as in improper listing. — xaosflux 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to user subpage - this sounds exactly like the sort of thing I'd have as a subpage when working on a heap of articles. Per Misplaced Pages:Subpages - note that just because it's under your user page (or project page) doesn't stop others from editing or accessing it if you wish, but can't be "inbound linked" - see the previously cited page for guidelines. Orderinchaos78 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into {{cocktail-stub}}Just H 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
COMMENT - The deletion notice template was added into part of the template that transcludes onto various articles, leaving nasty looking deletion notices on the articles. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, but it is a good reminder to be careful to place such templates within a noinclude block, not in the included part of a template. (Unless it really is the intention to ahve the articles look like they are about to be deleted, too.) I'm moving it inside of the noinclude tags for now. --Willscrlt 09:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into {{cocktail-stub}}. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:WPBrisbaneNotice

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This template is deprecated by WP Australia|Brisbane=yes. No transclusions remain. Orderinchaos78 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as obsolete.--cj | talk 18:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Orphaned, obselete. –Llama man 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:WPMNotice

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This template is deprecated by WP Australia|Melbourne=yes. No transclusions remain. Orderinchaos78 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as obsolete.--cj | talk 18:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:POEEJ

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It is not clear that this supposed allowance covers images. -Amarkov _edits 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete' as spam. Wimstead 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - promotes non-GFDL-compatible copyright. Misplaced Pages is not simply "reprinting". Was created only yesterday, has been applied to 3 images. Orderinchaos78 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I created this tag. The POEEJ was the Journal of the Institution of Post Office Electrical Engineers, and it was considered a serious engineering journal at the time - a British equivalent of the Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ). It ceased publication in 1981. It remains a very valuable primary source for research into telecomms history. Up to one-third of an article obviously includes everything in that article - it's absurd to infer that the 'one-third' applies to text only when the journal itself says nothing of the sort. It's equally absurd to expect a journal that expired 26 years ago to release content under a free license. I do wish you guys would get a clue before sounding off, because dangerously uninformed wikicops and self-appointed wikicrats are pissing off people who actually write CONTENT in droves. I've contributed a hell of a lot to WP but these days almost everything I try to create gets messed around with by people who don't know what they're talking about. This is the last straw. Fuck the lot of you, I'm outta here for good. Harumphy 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not a free license, and not a special case where the vast majority of examples would meet our requirements for fair use. --Carnildo 09:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Sounds like rights were explicitly released so long as the one-third requirement is kept (not hard), and plenty of valid images on WP require attribution. No problem with mirrors either, as it's to everyone and not just WP. Lastly, since they're defunct, there is absolutely no risk of them changing the licesing terms later. Misplaced Pages is not evangelism; just because it's copyrighted/closed source doesn't mean that it can't be used. SnowFire 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- It permits reproduction, which is only part of a free license. In order to be a free license, the license also needs to permit modification and distribution of modified versions. --Carnildo 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:CANADA

The result of the debate was being bold, redirected. Maxarre, if you want to {{db-author}} it, feel free. Patstuart 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merely duplicates Template:CAN; only has one use --Mk3severo 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and redirect duplicates which are used -Amarkov _edits 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Be bold per Amarkov. Xiner (talk, email) 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Be bold and boldly go where no man has gone before. (I don't get the "be bold" joke) Maxarre 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I was unaware of the existence of the CAN template when I made this one; I thought I had searched thoroughly enough for an existing template before I resorted to creating one. I updated the one page that reference this article by pointing it to the approved "CAN" template. Maxarre 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. - Privacy 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiMusicGuide

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, of course. Linkspam templates should not be used for things which do not have articles. -Amarkov _edits 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB, nom and the fact it may confuse people into thinking it's affiliated with Misplaced Pages. Orderinchaos78 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Amarkov. I created this template, but it is does not make sense to keep it if the article on the site was deleted. – Heave n's Wrath 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. Even if the article was not deleted, I don't think this template would be even the least bit necessary (no offense, Heaven's). -- Kicking222 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

January 4

Template:Cap'n Truman Cloggs

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Angela (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is out of contect nonsense. Probably created in error. --Obina 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Danaman5 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete; this is not a template. -/- Warren 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lquote

The result of the debate was deleteCirceus 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between Lquote and Cquote? Just the use of {{click}}? Kaldari 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The creation comment says (cquote except keep it left-justified;) AnonEMouse 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) bravely avoiding the temptation to use a quote template to quote that)

Delete — {{cquote}} and {{Rquote}} are more flexible and are widely used. --surueña 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sailor-Moon-stub-section

The result of the debate was rename Circeus 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiousity and the desire to make an informed vote, is it problematic to have nonstandard {{sectstub}}-like templates? --Masamage 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Still waiting for a response to this... --Masamage 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
As per What I said on the other Page, Keep Lego3400: The Sage of Time 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but would be better it its name was changed to {{Sailor Moon sectstub}} or similar, to make it clear it is not a stub template. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rework before keeping. Xiner (talk, email) 04:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename per Grutness. —CComMack (t–c) 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sailor-Moon-stub-List

The result of the debate was no consensus Circeus 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As above, this is a non-standard usage of {{listdev}} ~ Amalas rawr 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, {{expand list}} (I must have missed the move). ~ Amalas rawr 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agian as I said on the other Page, KeepLego3400: The Sage of Time 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but would be better it its name was changed to {{Sailor Moon expand list}} or similar, to make it clear it is not a stub template. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - no problem with this --T-rex 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename per Grutness. —CComMack (t–c) 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Current subject

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wimstead 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because the wording is awkward, and {{current-related}} already addresses those concerns. However, for accuracy I'd recommend pluralizing the language of {{current-related}}, so that it reads "This article is related to current events. Information may change rapidly as events progress." Then editors could be advised to use {{current}} only when the primary subject of the article is itself a "current event." Even so, there will likely continue to be a significant yet tolerable amount of inaccurate use of all of these. -Tobogganoggin 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep legit. See Template talk:Current news, which was the original location. It certainly seems far more pertinent than {{Future UK channel}} (versus {{Future TV channel}}) or {{Future sport event}} (vs. {{Future sport}}). Actually, while Category:Temporal templates might have been allowed to overgrow, this is not one that should go in my opinion.Circeus 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Beta Theta Pi Chapters

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Local chapter articles should be the exception (see Zeta Phi) rather than the rule. Accordingly I've added a See also to the main article to reference that chapter—and to explain the notability of the chapter and its history. I see no need to keep this template. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per C.Fred and the individual chapter articles created already within this template should be deleted also. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - In the previous TfD I advocated giving leeway if it was trimmed to include only chapters which had an article that asserted notability. Upon closer inspection, must bluelinks are redirects and there are only perhaps two notable chapters; therefore this template is unnecessary and will encourage vanity articles. —Dgies 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom and C.Fred. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, overkill. >Radiant< 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I was about to speedily delete this template, as it now consists solely of a few redirects to Beta Theta Pi and about 200 redlinks; the few articles it did have have now been deleted either via AFD or via CSD A7 (failing to assert notability). Then I noticed it was at TFD, so instead will suggest that we close and delete this as soon as is suitable. Proto::► 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and close discussion asap per Proto - it's a navigation template with nothing but red links and redirects to the same page. There's no possible use for it. It seems like further discussion would be pointless. delldot | talk 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:User_en-cñ

The result of the debate was userfy Circeus 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, the "language" Konyo/Coño does not exist in ISO 639 and en-cñ is an invented code. { PMGOMEZ } 08:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Userfy. I'll volunteer to host this. --Howard the Duck 11:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re "Userfy": I believe Lagalag should be the one to host this as its creator. { PMGOMEZ } 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could propose for them to be deleted? { PMGOMEZ } 13:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m all neutral on this issue, what for? —Lagalag 13:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Coño is a Spanish swear word. Asterion 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic question: Does it have anything to do with being rich? --Howard the Duck 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. It is slang for vagina. Generally used to express anger, contempt or similar emotions. Asterion 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. (You may remove this conversation if you'd want to.) --Howard the Duck 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Userfy. Asterion 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Either keep or userfy. The lack or presence of a code does not necessarily indicate that a particular linguistic phenomenon exists. Coño English is a type of English spoken by upper-class and/or educated Filipinos. --Chris S. 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or userfy if someone really wants it ... if this language doesn't actually exist and is only a profane template, why keep it in template space? --BigDT 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or userfy languange very informal but could be kept by a user if someone really wants it for his own userpage. KathzzZz 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Please see Coño. The creator should be warned, unless I'm mistaken. Xiner (talk, email) 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Userfy - People are getting all upset because this has a swear word. It's really just the hispanophone equivalent of Template:User_en-B. —Dgies 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the language is non-existent; we wouldn't keep a Babal-box for Intermediate Martian speakers would we? Anthony cfc 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Userfy - If you look at the amount of users that 'speak' konyo, you'll find that it's not just something the user made out of the blue. It's not offensive in the Philippines and I don't think the user who created the template should be warned. It just refers to the Filipino upper-class and their way of speaking. By the way, I couldn't disagree more with Dgies statement. It's more like the Filipino equivalent of Valley Girl... Well, if the phrase 'Valley Girl' had a swear word in it, at least. Konyo could be considered more of a 'language' than 'bullshit'... Anyways, I say userfy it, pare! Ham let 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Srbox pieces

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Srbox piece

Template:Srbox piece 2

Template:Srbox piece 3

{{Sr box piece}}, a redirect to Srbox piece, should be deleted as well. TMF 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete superseded templates. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom and Scott V60 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above/. ---Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above - deprecated • master_son 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. The issue of license tagging is hard enough to figure out as it is without superfluous and old templates floating around. -/- Warren 11:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to {{No rights reserved}} (first choice) or delete (second choice). The name really ought to be kept around ... otherwise, someone is just going to make it again six months from now. --BigDT 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, {{No rights reserved}} is actually in discussion to merge into {{PD-release}}, so if we were to redirect, I would prefer that we redirect to {{PD-release}}. Really though, I would prefer to not have any license template named "Free Use" (even as a redirect) since your average Misplaced Pages editor seems to easily confuse "Free Use" with "Fair Use". I would prefer that we delete it outright. If someone does recreate the template, I would just nominate it for deletion again. The fact that someone might recreate the template is not a very good argument against deletion, IMO. Kaldari 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Public domaining an image, has different legal consequences then a person maintaining the copyright of an image but allowing all free usage of the image. Also changing the copyright status without asking to the author is asking for trouble, particularly when the image permission was obtained from a non-Wikipedian. PPGMD 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is already a {{NoRightsReserved}} template which is a much better version of the license you are describing. As for the PD v. Free use issue, please see this discussion. Also, switching the template is not an issue. That action has already been debated, approved, and performed. This template is not currently used by any images (as of January 4). Kaldari 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I just deleted Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg, which PPGMD had tagged with this template but written was only for noncommercial use. PPGMD, please tag any other images that are actually licensed under a noncommercial license with {{noncommercial}} so that they can be deleted as well, and, if this template is not deleted, do not use it like this in the future. Jkelly 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - So you disregarded procedures and deleted an image without notifying the uploader on his talk page. If you took more then 5 minutes to look at the page you would have seen that I am Shawn Clark, and I can changed the license on the image by request when the page it was on came up for FA nomination. You are exactly the type of admins that are ruining Misplaced Pages. PPGMD 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Nice to meet you too. Noncommercial licensed images, regardless of what boilerplate may be put on the page, meet Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please don't expect to receive any warning about media not appropriately licensed being deleted. Jkelly 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Read your own link, they can only be speedy deleted if they were uploaded after May 15th, 2005, that image was uploaded in 2004. Images uploaded before then can only be speedy deleted if they aren't used in any article. Don't let anger of someone opposing a deletion get in the way of procedures. PPGMD 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Superceded by {{NoRightsReserved}}. Congratulations to Kaldari for this big cleanup job! Jkelly 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete High time we got rid of this, copyright issues are confusing enough without this. Some people just see "copyrighted" and use it on everyting, others just see "free" and use it on everyting they didn't pay for, and then there are the free/fair confusion and "with permission" mess mentioned above. --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Far too often, "copyrighted free use" is interpreted as meaning "the image is copyrighted, I was able to get my hands on it for free, and I want to use it". --Carnildo 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I have no great objection to deletion. But I also see no benefit, to this standard practice of removing "commonly misused" tags, which merely encourages people to misuse other tags, which in-turn, become less reliable. It used to be you could pretty much predict which images were copyvios based on what tag they had (e.g. almost all of certain tags were bad, and the bulk of certain other tags were good). Also, in principal, we should rarely change or remove image copyright tags, as whatever the copyright holder uploaded as, is the legal statement. One should never retroactively changed a legal declaration. If somebody makes a legal declaration of copyright release, then either that release is adequate (leave it alone) or inadequate (delete the image). But anyhow, it seems the tag has already been "unused", and the matter is settled, so I'm mainly just stating my opposition to this approach, rather than this specific deletion. --Rob 06:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree for the most part, although in this case the wording is so vague it seems we must guess as to the uploader's intentions regardless of whether we change the tag or not. Kaldari 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete This terminology is far too confusing for new users. Effectively obsoleted by NoRightsReserved anyway, which also has the benefit of being much clearer terminology. "CopyrightedFreeUse" means "I found it on a public internet server" to a very large number of people. - cohesion 12:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:CatDiffuse

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading this. --Samuel Wantman 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and create suitable guidelines for use. The fact that this template is applied too much—or in the wrong places—doesn't mean that there aren't cases (particularly top-level categories such as Category:History or Category:Science) where it's quite appropriate. Deletion is an unnecessarily blunt instrument to use here. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to answer all these points. The problem is that this tag gives no indication of what should be in the category and what should be diffused. Take Category:Science. Most of the articles in this category belong in category Science. If some of them belong and some of them don't this tag is no help. Each high level category, like "Science" needs some specific instructions that help people understand what belongs and what doesn't. Slapping these all with "diffuse", which means nothing to the average person, just makes the category look bad while giving no real instruction about what should happen. Also, I think there are two things going on here. There are top level topic categories that are general topics, and there are also articles about the general topics. That is all well and good. But then lower down there are lower level index categories that are perfectly fine categories, worthy of being populated. But whenever they get big they get divided up. What will be the result if we continue in this direction? The only categories that we will be able to browse will be microscopic in their scope. Why do we assume that everyone wants to browse this way? Some people don't know what they are looking for. That is the definition of browsing. In our system the only way to browse is to know what you are looking for first. -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep What we need is more people making an effort to categorize with precision and the benefit of lateral thinking. This is an excellent template. The promise that software intersection on the fly would be added to the software shortly has been around as long as I have known Misplaced Pages so it is anyone's guess if and when it will actually appear. Sumahoy 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: What's the use of sub-categorzing if everything's at the main category? We might as well delete all subcategories. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep This template is necessary on Category:Australian people, which is always being replenished with new articles, when it should ideally contain only categories. ReeseM 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- What would be so terrible if we had "Australian people" and all the subcategories as well? It would add a single category to each persons article and you'd be able to see a complete index of Australian people. If navigation to the subcategories is difficult, you could create an additional navigation category that would hold the subcategories currently in "Australian people". -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep For the love of mike, keep. This template helps me maintain some semblance of sanity when managing Category:History of the United States and Category:American Civil War. jengod 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this template is helpful in Category:History of the United States. How is anyone supposed to understand what belongs and what doesn't from reading this template? Can any general purpose template explain which articles belong in this category and which belong in the subcategory? I'm working on a proposal to replace template like this one with more user friendly ones that help people understand what is in the category. I'd be happy if anyone would like to help. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Category types -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- This category is very friendly and people can use their own judgement. I trust them to do that, but you seem to feel that we need cast iron rules for the classification each article in a particular field. We don't, Misplaced Pages is organic and constantly improving. Choalbaton 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Samuel you keep repeating this claim that we only have detailed categories because of a collective memory of a technical issue from two years ago but it is complete and utter rubbish. There must be thousands of people who have contributed to moving towards a more detailed category system and most of us hadn't even heard of Misplaced Pages two years ago! We do it because we think it improves navigability. You are the one that is living in the past - the first days of the category system when it wasn't detailed because it was immature and frankly just crap. I remember when I first read Misplaced Pages, before I had an account, one had to use the search box to find most things because the category system was hopeless, and that is what I have been helping to fix. You know as well as I do that you are in a small minority on this matter and as far as I know you are in a minority of one in having such an extreme preference for vast categories. Please drop this hobby horse and move onto something more useful. Chicheley 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Chicheley 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Wantman has a point, I suppose. Nevertheless this template seems to be useful for categories that should only contain subcategories that get silted up with articles. Herostratus 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above, but do something about the ugly lime green color. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - A template doesn't have to be designed to be useful for every situation. This one is for the specific situations described within it. This doesn't mean that every category must be diffused into sub-cats, just ones in which this template is applied. And one can always discuss on the related talk page. - jc37 07:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I really want to have a discussion about this. Even if this is kept, what can be done about it to make this template better, to better explain what should happen and why, to keep it from being applied wholesale to any category that gets large. Please, don't just say "keep" and ignore my concerns. I really think this is a serious problem and it will just get worse unless we address it. Also, I hope people will browse through German Misplaced Pages. I think they have a much better handle on this than we do. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The template is useful for marking populous, overly-braod categories. Category:Astronomy has one and needs one; most articles in that category should be diffused into subcategories. However, I agree with some Samuel Wantman's sentiments that the template needs to be edited so that it is simply not applied to any large category but appropriate categories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I suppose keeping this template because it does it can help us move to better categorization, but its use really needs to be limited to major "parent" categories that routinely collect new articles. Category:Microsoft is an example of where this template makes a lot of sense. If I had to guess, I'd say we have in excess of 1,000 articles related to Microsoft "stuff", spread across dozens of categories. If you have a look at the contents of the category now, it's picked up a number of articles that, while certainly related to Microsoft in some fashion, probably could use a better home. -/- Warren 11:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Samuel Wantman is quite wrong to suggest that this template orders people to remove all articles regardless of the appropriateness of doing so. It is perfectly clear that it actually simply requests that they remove them when appropriate. I am troubled by Samuel's apparent lack of trust in the judgement of this fellow editors. Choalbaton 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep "there is no technical reason that we have to break up big categories into small ones." Perhaps so, and some subcategorization is clearly excessive and would be best kept in the parent... but there is certainly a logical reason for subcategorization that aids readability and navigability. When such a concern exists, this template makes a lot of sense. SnowFire 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This template does nothing but encourage excessive overcategorizing, making navigation of categories cumbersome and tedious. - Gilliam (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I find this useful to mark large categories when there is a useful logical breakout to be made. This helps point out where there is work to consider. No one is forcing anything to be done, just suggesting the situation should be looked at. Hmains 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep wrt to the bolded part of the introduction, I like to be able to look for articles in small and sharp categories. Wimstead 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Having large categories divided into small, specific categories is one of the strengths of the category system, in my view. --Danaman5 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. My impression, as one of the patrollers of category:food and drink and category:foods (among other things), is that a lot of people put articles in the first potentially relevant category they run across, without looking to see if there is already a better, more specific category. That is different than people specifically thinking we don't need the subcategories. I agree that sometimes it would be very useful to see a flat, sorted list of all articles in all subcategories of a given category, or to be able to search all articles in a category and its subcategories -- but those issues ought to be handled by software. Humans ought to concentrate on categorization issues that can't be handled mechanically. :-) Dr.frog 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This template encourages people to make necessary refinements. Cloachland 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per many above. The JPS 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Categorization is always better served by filing people in the narrowest appropriate category rather than the general parent. There's a constant need to clean up things like Category:Television presenters or Category:Writers, where people who actually belong in subcategories like Category:British television presenters or Category:American novelists get thrown entirely too far up the tree by editors who don't understand how categorization is normally applied on here. There is, for instance, no practical or navigational benefit to having a single undifferentiated writers category that includes every single person on Misplaced Pages who ever wrote a book, regardless of their nationality or their literary genre; there is a lot of practical benefit to subclassifying writers by their cultural context and subject matter. Any category that could simultaneously include Margaret Atwood and Hamzah Fansuri, for instance, is defined far too broadly to be of any real encyclopedic value. A lot of categories thus do need regular monitoring for cleanup of this type, and I find it rather tiresome that some people continue to push the idea that duplicate categorization and/or pulling away from differentiating categories would be at all a positive development. If category intersections are in the works, then we can figure out how to revise our category scheme when that is in place; in the meantime, this is not the time to start imposing an as-broad-as-possible categorization scheme that is only effective or valuable when coupled with a technical change that hasn't happened yet. And furthermore, the use of general parents as "index" categories effectively vitiates the point of even having more specific subcategories. Once CI is in place, and subcategorization can be automatically handled by the server automatically searching for set intersections instead of through manual category creation, index categorization will make more sense, but as long as we still have to manually create a separate category for Category:Canadian writers, there isn't a useful reason to also add somebody to Category:Writers at the same time. So until CI is actually in place, keep. Bearcat 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have you noticed that Category:Canadian writers is no longer populated? It has been diffued into Canadian writers by type. Why can't I browse through all Canadian writers? What if I don't care if they write novels, plays, or poetry? I'm proposing that we pick a general and specific level for all these categories and stick with them. I got frustrated when Film directors got broken up into categories by nationality. To counteract that developement, I created Film Directors by language. At least I'd be able to look at all the English language film directors in one place. Now there is talk of dividing that category up. A question for everyone here: At what point do we say it doesn't matter how big some category gets, whatever size it is we're not going to depopulated it? Are we going to end up with Category:Poetry writers from Nova Scotia and Category:1967 American comedy films? Are these more useful categories for browsing than their parent categories? I don't think they are. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - What if people don't share your view about what level should be chosen? Why should we all go along with whatever happens to suit you when we have perfectly good policies in place already? Wimstead 12:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The acid test has to be how useful a category is to the reader. Some categories contain thousands of articles. In these extreme cases I find it hard to imagine who will browse through the category looking for related information - if useful subcategories can be created then these would be clear candidates for diffusion. Whilst it is possible to over-extend the level of subcategorization, I have yet to see this template applied to a small category which has unjustifiably tiny subcategories. Greenshed 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with SW on these matters, and also on leaving duplicate categories on occasion. Category:Anti-communists is another example - all it tells me is that anti-communists are of various nationalities, which I knew already. If the parent category listed all the articles in its subcats automatically (on the top page), that would be fine; or at least gave some idea of how many anti-communists are hiding in the various branches (or is it roots?). In some of these supercats one has dig down about 10 levels before finding an article - I use 'search', or google, not categories, to find anything. I expect to find anti-communists in Category:Anti-communists, not a list of subcats. roundhouse 10:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick, since I last looked an actual anti-communist has appeared. Hide him, he (or she) must have some nationality, or if not we need Category:Stateless anti-communists and possibly Category:Anti-communists whose nationality is open to some doubt. (There is a glaring lack of any Belgian anti-communists.) roundhouse 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The national categories can or should enable you to find those articles from the national people, politics and history categories, whereas if Category:Anti-communists was left in isolation far less people would be likely to find it. Wimstead 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. I came across Category:Anti-communists because there was a dispute about whether Hastings Banda was one (someone put Category:Anti-communists on his page and someone else removed it - I found a citation for this and put him back). He's now in Category:Malawian anti-communists, by himself. So Banda is not now grouped with anyone else, so I don't find any similar articles. Another example is Category:Malawian people - I would like to see who is included at one glance but I can't (there are only about 20 in there - it needs 20-odd clicks to see all the names - eg suppose I wanted to print out the names of those included). roundhouse 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in my earlier vote, showing a "flat" view of a category, or your suggestion of adding an annotation to indicate how many pages are children of a category, are software issues. Those are easy to fix mechanically because it requires only one fix to the software which can be applied to every category on Misplaced Pages. Putting articles in the most specific category possible allows for maximum flexibility of the software in customizing the category display for individual user preferences. But putting articles in subcategories does require human intervention and expertise for each Misplaced Pages article, and we should encourage contributors to add such information when possible. Dr.frog 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A flat "view" of a category would alter the whole discussion (as would intersections on the fly). I agree that both (essentially unions of subcats or intersections of supercats) are software issues, but have no idea how easy either might be. Many thanks for the terminology - it is exactly what I meant. (The relatively recent 'tree' view of cats was an advance.) Sorry - I missed your earlier comtribution above while glancing through - this is quite a long discussion, amongst many other long discussions. (And is an overwhelming keep, so my own vote is immaterial.) roundhouse 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per everybody and their brother. As so many write, when, in the by and by, super duper software becomes available to do everything, it may just as easily become available for doing sub-category intersection, not a noticeably harder problem. Meanwhile, having smaller categories is not only more manageable, but more useful. Unmanageable data is just noise. AnonEMouse 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

- But what about here and now? Can you give me a list of all the earthquake articles we have? Can you give me a list of all the hurricane articles we have? If you look at Category Scan for a recent CfD (School massacres), you can select "show all articles" as the filter option, and get a reasonable list there. Category Tree, as that page says, has been implemented on Misplaced Pages, but "show all articles" hasn't. That funtions would really help, and is probably closer than Category Intersection. Carcharoth 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, in fact I can, but I'll need a clarification of the question. Answer me why~~, besides WP:POINT,~~ do you want a list of all the earthquake articles we have? Do you want to read an exhaustive, but necessarily brief, list of all earthquakes known to science? List of earthquakes. Are you interested in detailed coverage of recent earthquakes, that were most likely to be thoroughly covered by modern media, and dealt with by modern methods? Category:Earthquakes by century. Do you want earthquakes that hit the place where you live? Category:Earthquakes by country. Do you want to thoroughly peruse Misplaced Pages's detailed coverage of all earthquakes known to science? Well, then you're going to have to click around 20 subcategories - but then you're going to want to be reading hundreds of articles anyway, so I'm not going to apologize too much for making you read 20 more category pages in addition. AnonEMouse 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, as a reader the reasons are that I want to browse an alphabetical index of Misplaced Pages's earthquake articles. I don't want to read all of them, just look over a contents index and see if anything looks interesting. By the way, if a reader, and not an editor, had asked you this question, would you have said "Answer me why, besides WP:POINT, do you want a list of all the earthquake articles we have?"? As an editor, I would like such a list to help organise editing efforts on earthquake articles. I too can produce such a list, but not everyone knows how to do this. Take a look at how I've handled this at Category:School massacres. I've now done this for earthquakes, just to actually get something done instead of talking about it. See Category:Earthquakes. The edits involved are listed here. Such alphabetical index lists allow us to look at both the big picture (all articles) and the detailed picture (how to organise those articles). My method of generating an alphabetical index list involves using the Category Scan tool I linked too (though as a toolserver tool that suffers from database replication lag), but I'd appreciate it, as a matter of editor-to-editor courtesy, if you would share your methods as well. That way we can both work to improve the encyclopedia, instead of throwing needless WP:POINT accusations about. Carcharoth 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I apologise and withdraw the accusation. I still believe focused subcategories are more generally useful. AnonEMouse 16:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        Thank-you for the apology. On my part, I'm sorry if I reacted too strongly to your asking me why I wanted such a list. May I still ask how you generate such lists? Returning to the actual categorisation discussion, surely the ideal is for both methods of browsing to be available to the reader and editor - the alphabetical index of a selected grouping of categories, plus useful subcategorisation schemes? There is no need to force people into choosing one over the other. Carcharoth 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'll need to tread carefully to avoid having to apologise again! "...look over a contents index and see if anything looks interesting." is not a tremendously focused goal - can you really tell that much from a long alphabetized list of article titles? Which of these "looks interesting" to you: Balakot, Bhalgran, or Butgram? Personally, all I can tell is that they start with a B. Imagine the category "Earthquakes" with hundreds of titles like that. While I will accept that it would be somehow useful to you, I propose that you are a rara avis. How do I generate such a list? I'm a humble manual mouse, I click through subcategories for what I want. And yet, in 9 cases out of 10, for 99 people (or mice) out of 100, having subcategories is much more useful. AnonEMouse 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        I agree that long contents lists are often uninteresting and uninformative, but they can be useful to help keep a category area under control - "what's that article doing there??" kind of thing. The example here probably was too broad, and it also includes non-Earthquake articles because of the vagaries of the categorisation system, but seriously, any useful encyclopedia should be able to produce, instantly, a list of all its articles on actual earthquakes. That is not an unreasonable request. To be pointed at Category:Earthquakes is a start, but not enough. You also seem to miss the point about how both systems can be useful. Sometimes I think, hmm, I want such-and-such a category, and I go looking and find it. Othertimes I find the category I was looking for has been diffused into numerous subcats, and I have to rebuild the category I wanted by manually generating a list. Do you see the point I am making? People focus their interest at different levels, and we should provide the tools and options to generate categories and alphabetical indices at different levels, and with different levels of discrimination (between details and an overall picture). Ideally, the normal encyclopedia categorisation would be set at a compromise level reached by consensus, and then people can use tools to go beyond that. Either: (a) unify categories to generate a larger view, or (b) intersect categories to find articles common to both. Ultimately, both should be possible. Carcharoth 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Web browsers

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The category should include these articles and only these articles, so I see no use. -Amarkov _edits 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I concur. The template also could be percieved as an POV since it only covers browsers which are currently updated. --LBMixPro 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is more suitable as a list article. -/- Warren 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Template serves no useful purpose that can't be better covered by a category or list article. Kaldari 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - informative and useful on article for those web browsers. If I'm on the IE article, it would be quite helpful to have a link to Firefox and Opera (browser). As for the POV "only certain browsers" - that's solved fairly simply - only those that are notable enough to have an article ought to be included. -Patstuart 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleteper Amarkov
Delete per nom. Wimstead 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - templates and catagories have different uses, this template is appropriate --T-rex 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We already have enough lists of web browsers in List of web browsers and Comparison of web browsers. -- Schapel 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar-portal

The result of the debate was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

House cleaning — Template is completely unused and no edits were ever made Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c 08:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar-mini-nodiv/doc

The result of the debate was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping (CSD G6). — TKD::Talk 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

House cleaning — /doc page, base templates was deleted Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar-mini/doc

The result of the debate was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping (CSD G6). — TKD::Talk 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

House cleaning — /doc page, base templates was deleted Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, purely procedural. -/- Warren 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Old discussions

Completed discussions

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

Tools

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

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

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

Navigation templates

None currently

Link templates

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

Other

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

To convert

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

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

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

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject_Buckethead_task_force 2024 November 14 – WikiProject_Buckethead_task_force ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Merge target needs clarification. The target is a wrapper of biography, but the task force is under WikiProject Guitarists which uses Template:WikiProject Guitarists. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
My closing statement does not involve Musicians so as to avoid the wrapping issue. There was no consensus the last time around to merge into Guitarists and no indication in the latest TFD that the opinion had changed. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Replace with {{Political parties in the Netherlands}} and {{Defunct political parties in the Netherlands}} as appropriate:
- Template:Liberal_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands 2024 December 10 – Liberal_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Socialist_parties_in_the_Netherlands 2024 December 10 – Socialist_parties_in_the_Netherlands ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To substitute

None currently

To orphan

Template:Peso 2024 December 19 – Peso ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Influencers 2024 December 20 – Influencers ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Ready for deletion

None currently

Archive and Indices

Categories:

Current discussions

January 10

January 9

VIA templates

January 8

January 7

Astronomical coordinate templates

January 6

January 5

January 4

Srbox pieces

Old discussions

Completed discussions

Tools

Closing discussions

To review

To merge

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

Link templates

Other

Meta

To convert

To substitute

To orphan

Ready for deletion

Current discussions

January 10

January 9

VIA templates

January 8

January 7

Astronomical coordinate templates

January 6

January 5

January 4

Srbox pieces