Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/October 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log‎ | Deleted

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Melsaran (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 7 August 2007 (bad link repair, Replaced: BJAODN → BJAODN using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template: poke-creature-cleanup

Delete: Redundant with Template:poke-cleanup, and not currently in use. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am the creator. It was an attempt to get a template that would go to the left of the infobox, but it didn't work and I forgot about it. Please delete. --Celestianpower hab 10:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, template is a G7. Aecis 21:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turkey footer

Loosely associated topics and unused template. CG 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ill-conceived. But for context, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Compressing footers. CDC (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with both above statements, so Delete. OR, at least replace the title, having it be a list of countries in the region, but not based on Turkey. --Jason McHuff 20:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a footer modelled on {{UK ties2}}. - SimonP 15:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can easily be replaced with Countries In Europe- Opethdamna 15:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people want this replaced, as some have suggested, they can of course do so, but I'm not going to take any action on the basis of this TfD (other than orphaning and deleting). -Splashtalk 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey team templates

Template: Edmonton Eskimos , Template:Calgary Flames, Template:Toronto Maple Leafs, Template:Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, Template:San Jose Sharks, Template:Washington Capitals, Template:New Jersey Devils, Template:Vancouver Canucks, Template:British Columbia Lions, Template:NY Islanders, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:NY Rangers and Template:Buffalo Sabres, Template:Toronto_Maple_Leafs

  • Delete: These templates are mostly not in use (British Columbia Lions and Edmonton Eskimos have one page using them each, all others zero), and are too specific; they would very likely never be used on any other articles than the teams they represent. Ongoing use of current players list across various articles is similar to Buffalo_Sabres#Current_Squad, rather than using these templates. I've listed what templates I've found in this group; there may be other similar ones. --Durin 22:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst: anything that's used; delete the rest. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any similar template associated with a NHL team: Yeah, these templates were a stain on a few NHL team pages (Template:NY Islanders, Template:NY Rangers, Template:New Jersey Devils, and Template:Buffalo Sabres) for a while. They were noted as "todo" at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Team_pages_format#The new "Current Squad", but recently an anonoymous user burdened himself with propagating it throughout the NHL and CFL. We seem to have come to a compromise of sorts and these templates no longer needed. ccwaters 23:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, just added those two to the grouping as well. Let's catch them all so we don't have to revisit this if we find any more in the future. --Durin 23:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking... it was a busy day... I'll search for NHL templates and add any I find, feel free to look through my contribs that day for more background. ccwaters 23:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all the NHL templates... Thanks ccwaters 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any such template associated with a hockey team. While the CFL fans can make their own decisions, over in hockey we've got a standard consensus format for Team Pages. This template is far too busy, supported by no one else, and the anonymous user propagating it refuses to participate in any discussion or defend his templates, in addition to doing repeated reversions. RGTraynor 23:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: None of these had any Whatlinkshere apart from this TfD and a subpage of Durin's userspace, so I have deleted without subst:ing. Please let me know if that messed anything up. -Splashtalk 16:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox alienaa

Delete: Looks like the creation of someone who misunderstood the point of templates. This "infobox" is hardcoded with info about one particular webgame, and it's not actualy used anywhere. See no point in keeping this. Sherool 02:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Delete agree with nom. Image used in template just got killed too - which is yet another reason to delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template: Infobox Canada

Delete: Unused template (Canada seems to have switched to Template:Infobox country). Sortan 15:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: use and modification of Template:Infobox Country is sufficient (I think ...) E Pluribus Anthony 23:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The other info box being used seems much better. Masterhatch 05:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virginia Higher Education

Delete: Unwieldy monstrosity with natural representation as categories Fawcett5 15:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Before someone gets the bright idea to do the same thing for California institutions of higher learning where the template will be four time as large and four times as ugly. BlankVerse ∅ 08:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary; if any template is needed, use {{otherarticles}} Septentrionalis 19:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not in its current form. Split three ways along the lines of "Virginia Public Universities", "Virginia Private Colleges and Universities", and "Virginia Community and Technical Colleges". The current all-in-one format is too large and unwieldy. Schuminweb 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not necessary... wouldn't want to see the same thing for New York, Calfornia, Texas, etc. Uris 12:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete naveboxes are generally undesireable, IMO. Only the very best of them are worthwhile, which this isn't. DES (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not in its current form; same as Schuminweb, above. -James Howard (talk/web) 14:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uvaduck 19:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as creator of the template, I humbly request that this be deleted. Once/if consensus is gained, I will undertake the effort of removing the tags from the articles before deletion to avoid making work for someone else. After reading the comments above, it definitely makes sense why this should be avoided for larger states and having this one out there provides for the "cloning" as I did from another template of similar nature. As the other template existed, I incorrectly assumed presedence. I will make sure I suggest the template appropriately before undertaking such action in the future. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 07:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poster

Delete, too vague to fit in with our future direction on fair use tags, replaced with five other poster tags, now unused. JYolkowski // talk 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete other tags are listed for use. ∞Who?¿? 04:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No longer necessary, wasn't a good idea originally, encouraged lot of sloppy thinking about copyright. --Fastfission 02:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Past

If a product is no longer produced, this can be stated in the article. There's no need for a {{current}} equivalent here. --fvw* 01:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree that if a product has ceased to be produced it should be incorporated into the prose. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fvw. CDC (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can be used for clarification even if the discontiunation is mentioned in the article. Opethdamna 03:59, 01 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, say it in the article. Broken S 17:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this really necessary? Gamaliel 18:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not necessary; any half decent article should already include this info in the text--Jiang 06:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the comments above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Sources

Delete: Not sure what this is supposed to be used for, but it doesn't link to anything. Was edited only twice before I placed the TFD tag on it; the last time was in March. Kamezuki 10:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As it doesn't link to anything, and the intended usage is unclear. LiniShu 02:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was for adding references/sources to an article, but it really doesn't make it easier. Delete. ∞Who?¿? 04:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)q[reply]
  • Delete: Has no future potential for usuage. Meaning unclear Opethdamna 04:10, 01 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Directors templates

Recreations of Template:Kubrick (deleted) and Template:Steven Spielberg's films (deleted). These were previously deleted and categorified on this previous Tfd. Speilbergs was recreated against consensus and then speedied. Now they are both back again. The categories act as just as good as navigation system. Also some movies list both directors such as A.I. (film), which would look pretty silly if both templates were used. Propose redeletion, as they have already been categorified. ∞Who?¿? 14:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or shrink to a managable size. Information is easily found on the directors own page. MechBrowman 20:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to {{otherarticles}} and deleteSeptentrionalis 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd 00:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Titoxd. Fritz Saalfeld 15:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pixar, Kevin Smith or Wes Anderson have their template,why not Spielberg or Kubrick. This escapes me. What about James Bond ?Hektor 20:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this the policy to delete ALL director templates ? 68.91.98.214 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm Speilberg's template was deleted against policies. It was added to another deletion request as a way to sneaky delete several templates. Votes here seem to all assume the template was properly deleted and just recreated. This template should remain and then be judged according to if its useful or not, and personally I think it's very useful since it's the only link from the various films to the director. Elfguy 17:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ItalyTourismCopyright

Delete, unused and unlikely to be useful in the future. JYolkowski // talk 20:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and not useful Masterhatch 12:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Jensboot 13:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VfD nomination

Not used, first and last edit in August 2004. {{Afd2}} or {{Afd3}} are used for this now. Delete. ∞Who?¿? 09:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Articleballot

Delete: Same functionality as {{afd3}}. --AllyUnion (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not needed, created under misunderstanding of the AfD log page and transclusion. android79 15:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused relative of {{af3}}. Titoxd 05:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to above, the use of "ballot" in the title starts to again imply that we're voting. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is basically the same as the Tfd I listed below for {{VfD nomination}}, hint. ;) ∞Who?¿? 23:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to its redundant brother. (unsigned comment) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.176.99 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:To do (stable)

Delete: {{To do (stable)}} is redundant now that {{To do}} works properly; orphaned. —Phil | Talk 07:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Daily Show

Delete: As big, bad and gaudy as this template is, just imagine what this would do to articles about people who have been on multiple shows, if every show had a template like this one. Does nothing that a category and a list in the ahow's article wouldn't do better. Caerwine 17:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Links in the article text where more can be said about the roles each of these people have played and links back from each of those articles to the article on the show are the best way to go, possibly supplemented by a category. DES (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I trimmed it down some, so it's not so unruly. It's not so bad. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still atrocious, just not as atrocious, but it still doesn't accomplish anything that a category and a list in the show's article wouldn't do better. This type of template is marginally acceptable where the topic of the navbox is such that it would be the only one that would logically go at the bottom of each of the articles it referenced. However, that definitely is not the case here. Caerwine 20:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{otherarticles-alph}} Septentrionalis 22:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Septentrionalis. Not necessarily useful. ∞Who?¿? 23:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Templates that replicate the function of categories are irritating. -- Tyler 05:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how this replicates anything. --J L C Leung 06:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's really overpowering to put it on people's pages who have been on the Daily Show a few times and it distracts from the articles. Otherwise it's rather pointless. --BrandonR 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. violet/riga (t) 09:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why the hell not? WAS 03:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless, as per nomination. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: NJGov

Delete: Template claims that works of New Jersey state govenment employees are automatically public domain. This is incorrect: the works are copyrighted by the New Jersey state government. Carnildo 21:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the State of New Jersey website's legal page [1], the state alows viewing, copying and distribution of the information on the state website. Note that it doesn't include permission to modify or sell material. It also specificly warns that it doesn't claim that the materials are in the public domain. Note that the last line in the page does include a copyright statement. AFAIK, the only US State with a public domain policy is California. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, NC does dedicate state-held information - termed in law as the property of the people - see link from Template:PD-NCGov. I created the NC template after requesting permission to use several images from state agencies, who always referred me to that statute. The text of the template borrows heavily from the statute.--Mm35173 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading. Secretlondon 22:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inaccurate, and when corrected for accuracvy, will not warrent inclusion in wikipedia without more specific info that woudld support a different tag. DES (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto.--Mm35173 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAphoto

All of the images using this are currently on IfD. No-one's uploaded an image with this tag since 2004, and since it's a by-permission-only licence, any new images so tagged would be CSDs. So, I don't think it serves a purpose any longer. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all stuck on ifd. Poor quality images, and unfree. Secretlondon 22:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-UTGov (Template:License-UTGov)

What the template describes is not a grant to public domain; it's actually a very restrictive license (no modification allowed, personal or informational use only). These images are not free enough to use on WP. Commercial or noninformational use must be permitted for WP inclusion.--Mm35173 14:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, tagged images

I moved the template to License-UTGov because the PD- prefix is misleading. I still advocate deletion, but I can't do that. I am adding {{nonfreedelete}} to the linked articles. --Mm35173 15:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone else has already tagged them IfD. I am changing this to db - they meet WP:CSD#Images/Media number 3. --Mm35173 15:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have also notified the user who se up the template and uploaded all the images. An admin can take down those images now, they are all CSD'd. (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:License-UTGov) --Mm35173 20:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-MOGov

Delete unless evidence provided to support the assertion this template makes. JYolkowski // talk 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Oh yeah, I should probably mention why I think it should be deleted. It certainly doesn't seem that works of state of Missouri employees are public domain, see [2] for an example. JYolkowski // talk 22:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and retag the three images using it as appropriate. Lupo 11:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. DES (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US-SupCourt-Justices

Made redundant by Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005-present, which gives the exact same information and is made superior by being incorporated into other existing templates. We are dealing with four different boxes under John Roberts and three boxes for the other justices and it looks awfully cluttered down there. This one is not needed. --Jiang 08:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: CountryTOC

Delete: This template was used on a single page, and is specific to that page, so it cannot be used elsewhere. I have substituted the template with the actual code on that page (which needed to be edited anyway) and cannot see any reason to keep this. -- Reinyday, 15:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:ISBN

This seemed like a good idea at the time, in addition to the regular ISBN link it also made a direct lookup-link to the xISBN site (lists all related ISBN numbers for other editions of the book). However the external link was quickly removed as it "looked cluttered", and in hindsight I tend to agree. Anyway acording to Phil Boswell it's preferable that people go to that site via the Special:Booksources page, and in its current form this template is utterly pointless as a regular ISBN link (which is all it outputs now) takes less time to type than transcluding this template does. --Sherool 13:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per Sherool. Stbalbach 14:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is almost CSD, but since Phil Boswell edited it, we must have consensus. --Mm35173 15:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lucky I saw this before I went for the weekend :-) I only edited it so that articles using it could be made less cluttered while I SUBSTituted it in, then discovered there were only two of them anyway. You go ahead and speedy it with my blessing. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it as CSD G7. Titoxd(?!?) 17:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: ExtendCOTW

  • Delete: Unused template; role of template is confined to a single page. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it is not even paraneterized for date. mikka (t) 17:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Embarassing. Jkelly 05:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Information

Delete' because this is not in English, and not very informative. 132.205.45.110 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in English. *drew 05:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The script appears to be Thai. I have no idea if it means anything, but it's not of much use here. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On top of all the other problems, it is only used on the page for an image (Image:Nps fort barrancas.jpg) that is not used by any page. Oy. -- Tyler 08:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not in English. -WindFish 02:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not in English, misuse of title. User:Nichalp/sg 07:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Template: Infobox Northern Irish hills (no image)

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. Grinner 09:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: agree with Grinner. hike395 16:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Northern Irish hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains Grinner 09:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: agree with Grinner. hike395 16:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Johto gym

Delete: An obsolete navbox; it was meant to tie together a series of articles which have since been merged into List of Johto Gym Leaders. Indeed, the links now even point to the section headers of that article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per A Man in Black -WindFish 02:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EFM

The goal of this template can be accomplished through other processes. Ingoolemo talk 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete this speedy delete template, as it is a bent interpretation of CSD A1. Besides, blanking pages is the discouraged way of moving pages. Titoxd 05:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox british hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. Grinner 16:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

n.b this debate should now also include {{Infobox british hills (no image)}}, which has likewise been superseded and is no longer used. --Stemonitis 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grinner has done a great job converted over all of the old infoboxes to the new flexible format. We don't need this template any more. Thanks, Grinner! -- hike395 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. --Stemonitis 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White Rajah

Template:Healthy Reminder

This template was inserted by its creator into a number of medication-related articles. Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer covers this, and I move for deletion. I have already removed it from the relevant articles. JFW | T@lk 18:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I remember that another template was put here on TFD and eventually deleted for being used for a similar purpose, but I cannot remember its name offhand. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; having an additional disclaimer is a Bad Thing, as it implies that articles without that extra disclaimer are somehow safer. We already have an overall disclaimer; no need for a new one. Shimgray | talk | 19:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having per-article disclaimers may actually increase liability for the articles without disclaimers. --Carnildo 20:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Disclaimer templates. --cesarb 19:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:CoS

Delete: This template is basically a fancy redirect to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, which would be better implemented as an actual redirect. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del text shortcut --MarSch 17:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per MarSch. It's... Thelb4! 17:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The word CoS can't be a redirect, because it is already a disambiguation page. And you shouldn't put redirecting links to the articles. But the text in the template is too short, and it is not going to change in the future, so you don't need such template. -Hapsiainen 19:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as text shortcut. Pureblade 01:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary drain on the system for people who can't be bothered to type. Rob Church Talk | FAD 08:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If a true redirect is not possible, this is the best we can have. It's not laziness that leads people to not want to have to keep typing ''[[Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets|Chamber of Secrets]]'' over and over again. If this was the only book being referenced, it would be easy to just copy and paste. But there are 6 books so far. --Icarus 18:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To reduce the drain on the system, people can be encouraged to use {{subst:CoS}} instead of {{CoS}}. To do this, the following can be added to the end of the template: <!--If the preceeding text reads "{{CoS}}", please change it to "{{subst:CoS}}" and remove this note. If it reads "[[Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets|Chamber of Secrets]]", please remove this note.-->. The note might stick around invisibly in each article for a while, but that's not really a problem.
    • That note would only show up if the template was substed, and if it did show up "{{CoS}}" would not. Please do some more reading about how templates and substing works before voting on Tfd. Superm401 | Talk 19:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and see my comments relative to the other incredibly needless templates grouped above. Soltak | Talk 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. When substed, still much shorter than what it expands to; when not substed, the load is tiny. ~~ N (t/c) 16:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my reasoning on the others. the wub "?!" 20:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or userfy and subst, as per Hapsiainen's reasoning with the rest of the HP templates. Titoxd(?!?) 23:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hilariousnonsense

Fork of {{db-nonsense}}. I'm sure we've deleted something much like this before, but couldn't find it in the logs. (It's not empty, just all encased in <includeonly> tags.) —Cryptic (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Academia

A sisterproject box for a non-sisterproject. Not worth changing into an imdblike external link template, either, since it's only used on one article. —Cryptic (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a sister project, delete. Titoxd(?!?) 23:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per reasons above Youngamerican 05:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • convert to something like the {{wikitravel}} and {{memoryalpha}} templates, and covert all the uses to a bullet point under the article's External link section. BlankVerse ∅ 15:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Userpage-image

I am appealing this to Jimbo. I request that you do not delete this template or images which falls under it before Jimbo has had a chance to answer. Thue | talk 18:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A fake copyright template for non-free userpage photos. According to Special:Upload, if you upload a photo you own, you must license it under the GFDL. Regardless, I don't think we should be hosting non-free photos, even for user pages. dbenbenn | talk 14:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually I thought it was a good idea when I saw it, but {{PD-self}} covers this I think. Also, WP NOT a repository of images if they aren't for the encyclopedia or adminstrative purposes, they shouldn't be uploaded. Delete. ∞Who?¿? 14:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PD-self is nothing at all like this template. The former says that anyone can do anything they want with no one's permission; the latter says that no one can do anything with it except this user on her user pages. Can you clarify why you think it covers this case? Elf | Talk 00:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Dan | Talk 14:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add reasoning to taste. -Splashtalk 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any particular reason why user photos shouldn't be able to be restricted further than encyclopedia images. — Dan | Talk 16:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about our foundation principle that all content should be copyleft, or at least free? Superm401 | Talk 19:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only place where applying that principle makes sense is for content actually in the encyclopedia... Thue | talk 18:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was origionally thinking keep, but I am in total agreement with Who in saying that our main purpose here is to serve as an encyclopedia first, and as a community second. If it isn't reasonable to be put in the articles, it serves no purpose here. Thanks Who. [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 14:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same argument applies to your userpage; it isn't reasonable to put that in an encyclopedia, and yet it is here. I can go speedy it right now if you want me to :). Thue | talk 13:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything you upload here that is your own is under the GFDL, whether you like it or not. This template has no meaning, and no force. Anything you upload here which is by-permission only is unacceptable anyway. Keep this all you like, it is overriden by Foundation policy and our existing copyright license. Even if you put that template on it, I can still use it under the GFDL, and there is nothing you can do. -Splashtalk 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But applying those rules in this case serves no purpose. Applying Wikipedia:Ignore all rules makes it clear to me that non-free userspace images makes perfect sense. Thue | talk 14:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment You could always put {{publicityphoto}} on such a pic, i suppose, i have considered doing that if i uploded a photo of myself. DES (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would make it a candidate for speedy deletion as unused fairuse.dbenbenn | talk 18:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not if it is used on a user page, I think. DES (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We cant have different rules for user space. Its the same encyclopaedia. Justinc 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The userpages are not part of the encyclopedia. Thue | talk 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone wants to put up his photo on his user page but doesn't want to release it to GFDL what else should he do? Think of it as a variant on fair use. No one is going to sue Wikipedia because they uploaded their photos.  Grue  16:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no "variants" on fair use. Understand the law. We are building a free encyclopaedia, not a collection of pictures. Many other fair use pictures are not actually valid. If you dont like the project of building a free encyclopaedia and you just want free image hosting then you might want to go somewhere else. Justinc 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't want to contribute content under the GFDL, perhaps you should reconsider contributing to Wikipedia. dbenbenn | talk 18:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is ridiculous argument. There was never a requirement that all uploaded images are GFDL. Otherwise we won't have any logos or album covers.  Grue  18:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you upload material to Wikipedia that you own the copyright to, you must upload it under the GFDL, or into the public-domain, or not at all. You can multilicense to your heart's content, but everything is still GFDL. Doesn't matter what template you put on it, you are not to upload it as a non-free image and, if you do, it is a speedy. Same applies to anything with this template on it: Jimbo has isntructed us to delete them at speed. There is no reason to be affectionate toward a template that was invented the day before yesterday and is barely in use. It would, moreover, be mislead to uploaders to give the impression that this template is any way appropriate in terms of the license it tries to use. -Splashtalk 22:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Album covers, logos, etc. can't be claimed as fair use on user pages. For that claim to hold, the images must be in use in the encyclopedia in an article directly related to the image. This is why many such images are being deleted – they're article-space orphans, and fair use can no longer be claimed. android79 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: images on user pages should be, and are, subject to the same copyright issues as images in any other namespace. If you really want a personal picture on your user page but you don't want to license it under a CC or GFDL license, then stick it on some free external web space and link to it from there. WP should not shoulder the additional burden of hosting non-article-related images. — EagleOne\Talk 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've got no problem with images solely used on user pages, but this template falsely claims some sort of special restriction for the image it's attached to. If you don't want an image licensed under the GFDL, don't upload it. It's that simple. android79 18:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is neither a webhost nor a repository of images. If you don't want to license the images on your userpage under the GFDL or another free license, then don't upload them. --Carnildo 22:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the point? My image not being GFDL makes absolutely no difference on the goal of Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia. Thue | talk 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I haven't seen any arguments for deletion above that have merit. This whole thing seems to be an attempt to enforce the "all uploaded pictures must be GFDL" rule, only for the rule's own sake. It is clear to me that if the rule does not allow for a simple thing like having a harmless picture of yourself on your userpage while not wanting it to be freely redistributed and modified, then it is the rule which is broken, not this template and the concept it represents. Besides, that rule seems to be unenforced in plenty of other contexts; fx fair use images are certainly not GFDL.
    I do also not see how having a non-GFDL image will affect Wikipedia's mission to build a free encyclopedia, as long as the image is not used in any articles. And what does anybody really care if the image of me on my userpage is GFDL? - it is not part of any Wikipedia articles.
    Of course Wikipedia should not be an image-repository for piles of useless unrelated images, but allowing people to include an image or two of themselves on their userpage is harmless, and has social value, as it hightens the quality of userpages and thereby builds the Wikipedia editor community. And there is no reason to force people to license those images under the GFDL. Done within reason (one or two images as on fx my user page), I don't see any resource argument for disallowing userpage images, as some people above seems to argue. The argument that people could just link to the image on an external host does not hold water, as a hyperlink to an image is absolutely not the same as showing the image inline. Thue | talk 23:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (The creator of the template)[reply]
    • You need to tell Jimbo the rule is broken, rather than TfD. Making everything here which is not fair-use to be GFDL was his idea. The template is misleading at best and has no force at all at worst. -Splashtalk 01:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was kind of hoping that this case was obvious enough to not need official blessing from Jimbo. Aside from a few people arguing that there should be no content here but the encyclopedia (how about their userpages?), I have seen no reasoning but following the rules for the rules own sake. Non-free userpage images is also an old practise; board member User:Anthere even has one on her userpage. But as you can see, I have posted a note on Jimbo's talk page. Thue | talk 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like it or not, wikipedia *does* have a community underlying it. That's what enables the collaborative environment to work. The community is composed of users. Having, for example, a photo of a user adds a face to the name, which may make the user seem even more human. I for one don't like the idea of having my photo suddenly appear in some advertisement somewhere, credited or not, but I do feel that having my photo on my user page is a contribution to the underlying community. I was never comfortable having it there under GFDL. Since we tell people anyway that they're supposed to look at the individual photo description pages to determine what the licensing is before they use it, it should be completely clear when using this template that it's not intended for use either in the encyclopedia or any other use. I wonder how many other users would rather have their images not GFDLed but have felt that they have no choice. Elf | Talk 23:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thue. Someone show me the rule that says all images owned by the uploader must be GFDL. It's not on Special:Upload. ~~ N (t/c) 00:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? It says it right there: If you upload a file here to which you hold the copyright, you must license it under the GNU Free Documentation License or release it into the public domain. (emphasis not mine). Just above where you click to upload. -Splashtalk 01:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this allows a user to upload an image of him/herself without fear of her picture being used in an inappropriate way in accordance with wikipedia rules. 12.220.47.145 00:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Does not permit third party use. Under CSD Images #3, any new such images are immediately candidates for speedy deletion. While I have sympathy for the community builders here, this is clearly against the rules. If you want to change the rules go discuss it at the policy forums or talk to Jimbo, but you can't change the rules simply by creating a template and wishing it were so. Dragons flight 00:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I see, that CSD only prohibits "non-commercial use" and "used with permission". This is neither. The point of that CSD, IIRC, is to allow Wikipedia mirrors to copy all of our images. This template does not conflict with that, for as long as the image is only used in the user-space on Wikipedia it will only be used in user-space on the mirror (if they copy the user space), and the mirror will still be in full compliance. ~~ N (t/c) 00:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the template: "This image is for use in the Wikipedia user:-space, and permission is not given for use anywhere but the Wikipedia user:-space". "Wikipedia" is the trademarked name of this encyclopedia. Reusers are not Wikipedia, and hence the language explicitly prohibits use by any reusers. Even if that were not an issue, the "used with permission" category is intended to, as {{permission}} says, exclude any images such that "terms of the permission do not include third party use". These images are clearly not being made freely available to third parties, and hence violate both the spirit and the letter of the law on Wikipedia. The community can change the rules if it wishes, but this is certainly on the wrong side of policy right now. Dragons flight 00:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It fairly clearly is a "with permission" case. The tag explicitly denies permission to use it in article space ergo to use it in article space requires permission. But Special:Upload makes clear (see my comment above), as does the Wikipedia licensing policy which I presume comes from the Foundation that materials to which you own the copyright are, when uploaded to Wikipedia by you, released under the GFDL. If you don't want them GFDL'd, don't upload them. Even if this template falls foul of TfD and is kept, everything tagged with is still a speedy. -Splashtalk 01:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything with this template is sitting on IfD, which can't be a good sign. One even is even tagged as no source, and most appear to be for non-commercial use only. Maybe this template itself can't lead to a CSD, but the way things are going, there isn't much favoring this template these days. Does it help that our effort of developing our encyclopædia is ahead of operating as a community? No. Wcquidditch | Talk 00:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Changing reason, see below.[reply]
    • Does it hurt our effort of developing our encyclopædia in any way? no. What is your reason for supporting deletion? Thue | talk 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, fine. Forget the "reason" I gave above. My delete vote is now per anyone else who said "delete". If that makes it easier, that's fine. Wcquidditch | Talk 14:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per User:Splash and others. Titoxd(?!?) 01:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no special license for specific material. If template is kept it only becomes a way to tag things to be speedily deleted. (SEWilco 06:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a "with permission, Wikipedia only" case which has not been allowed for quite some time by a declaration of Jimbo.[3] This is cut and dry, it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks it is "good" or "bad" for the community. --Fastfission 12:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that Jimbo only meant that rule to be applied to content in the encyclopedia. While I am in total agreement with Jimbo about images in Wikipedia, it is equally clear to me that the rules makes no sense when applied to userspace images. Thue | talk 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you don't want your images used by others don't upload it to the Wikipedia in the first place. Just get a homepage where you can make the rules and link to it instead. --Sherool 13:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my interpretation, uploading for use in my user-page is not the same as uploading it to Wikipedia. Anyway, what point would it serve to force me to make the image I have of myself licensed under the GFDL. Thue | talk 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur here, but if anyone's interested I floated some ideas about "project-specific images" on wikien-l. Will see if that gets anywhere. Shimgray | talk | 13:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates image policy. I think the policy should be changed, but TFD is the wrong place. ~~ N (t/c) 14:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thue. DES (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The Wikipedia policy on this is not negotiable. If you have the copyright to the images you upload you are automatically licensing them under the GFDL. BlankVerse ∅ 16:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Splash, for the sake of the clarity of existing policy. Xoloz 16:44, 11 October

2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per whoever. I don't see why we need images on user pages anyhoo. Look at mine! Borisblue 18:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it violates both foundation principles and image policy. If you have a problem with policy, change that first. Don't come here to to do so. Superm401 | Talk 19:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per anybody spoken. No "further protection" should be done for anything on Wikipedia. --Monkbel 19:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep awaiting a declaration from Jimbo. the wub "?!" 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. There are images on WP which use this template which were uploaded before May 19, 2005, and back then, used with permission was allowed. The current policy does not allow deletion of images created before that date for which free alternatives are not available. And, by the way, everybody please go look at this Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal - Criterion T1. We need to stop new templates like this from being created. --Mm35173 20:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does. It just doesn't allow them to be speedied. Superm401 | Talk 07:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't make the rules we just follow them and the rules apply to all images not just images used in articles. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 01:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view is that supporting the application of a rule in a case where it makes no sense (by voting delete here) is silly. See the official policy page Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Thue | talk 13:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMHO citing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to keep something is what is silly. The idea behind Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is to not let red tape and the letter of the "law" get in the way of improving the Wikipedia. Adding unfree images to your userpage in no way improve the Wikipedia so IMHO that is a moot argument. What's next, vandals citing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in order to get theyr hoax articles kept?
        The one argument in favour of something like this IMHO is the exsistence of Category:CopyrightByWikimedia wich contains logos and such that is not GFDL'ed, but copyrighted and all rights reserved Wikimedia Foundation. Feel free to try and get aproval for a simmilar category for userpage images, but untill such a consensus or desission from the Foundation exist the normal rules apply, wich clearly states that user made contributions have to use a free licence. --Sherool 14:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not deleting non-free userpage images does help improve Wikipedia, by not annoying Wikipeda's editors by the application of rules in cases where the rules make no sense. On the page it says "Actions that are reasonable but which contradict a strict reading of the rules should not be penalized". Using a non-free userpage image is just such a case, as it does not have any negative consequences. A strict reading of ignore all rules makes it clear to me that it applies here :).
  • Delete. In order for the click-through GFDL agreement on the upload page to have any meaning it must be equally applicable in all cases. If we start making exceptions, it will only lead to more problems and confusion. Keep it simple. Invoking IAR in this case destroys the intent of that rule and essentially makes the case for all those who voted against accepting IAR as policy. older≠wiser 21:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate here is fairly clear. I note the message at the top about Jimbo, but see that he hasn't responded at all. If he does, and policy changes to accomodate this template, it can of course be restored, or recreated in line with a new policy, in a flash. -Splashtalk 20:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{PoA}},{{GoF}},{{OotP}}, {{HBP}}

Much like Template:CoS, each of these is an un-needed transcluding redirect to articles about the Harry Potter books in question. Delete all. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete. dbenbenn | talk 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They save a lot of time. Which would you rather type out, [[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix|Order of the Phoenix]] or {{OotP}}? If they are to be changed, they should be changed from reading [[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix|OotP]] into [[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix|Order of the Phoenix]] --Icarus
  • Comment: To reduce the drain on the system, people can be encouraged to use {{subst:OotP}} instead of {{OotP}}. To do this, the following can be added to the end of the template: <!--If the preceeding text reads "{{OotP}}", please change it to "{{subst:OotP}}" and remove this note. If it reads "[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix|Order of the Phoenix]]", please remove this note.-->. The note might stick around invisibly in each article for a while, but that's not really a problem. --Icarus 20:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just as soon not have that invisible text wandering around in the article. It's not that big of a deal to type it out correctly. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that if it's not substed the comment won't show up? ~~ N (t/c) 20:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate not using transclusion, which consumes resources, for what is essentially a re-direct. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The utter laziness required to use these templates is pretty disheartening. How bloody difficult is it to type out [[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix|Order of the Phoenix]]? I just did it and I don't feel the least bit faint. Soltak | Talk 21:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and use only with subst: or Delete. I can see how these'd be a nice timesaver, but transcluding them is an unnecessary waste of resources. android79 23:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete as per android. DES (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nag anyone who doesn't use subst. Typing different things once each is much less tedious than typing the same thing over and over. Kappa 22:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's why they invented copy/paste. Laziness really isn't an excuse on this unless one types three words a minute. Soltak | Talk 23:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subst has nothing to do with this.
  • Keep per Kappa. If substed these are still much shorter than the text they become, and if not substed they add very little load. ~~ N (t/c) 23:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Produces a link, which shouldn't be used every time the title appears as per WP:MOS. If you're only going to use it once/twice per article, it can't be that hard to type it out. the wub "?!" 20:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Imagine what the server load it would be like, if people made and used more such templates. {{US}} for United States, {{e}}} for electronic, and so on. And people had revert wars over whether CoS is "Chamber of Secrets" or "Church of Scientology". Keeping these means encouraging people to create more templates of this kind. -Hapsiainen 22:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least, userfy and subst, per Hapsiainen above. Titoxd(?!?) 23:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! VERY useful - I didn't realise there were templates to either Globe of Frogs or Out of the Past! </irony> Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Hapsiainen. Susvolans ⇔ 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otherlicence

Unused duplicate of Template:Promotional. It shouldn't be made a redirect, because the title is meaningless.

Apparently when this template didn't exist, someone made this the last choice at MediaWiki:Licenses, with the text "Other: this placeholder must be replaced by a proper tag". Not surprisingly, about a month ago, someone followed the red link and created this template, defeating the purpose. I've orphaned it, replacing most uses with {{no source}}. dbenbenn | talk 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Webcomic notability

Delete: This template was created to be posted into discussion forums, particularly AfD discussions, as a way of citing its proposed guidelines authoritatively and influencing outcomes. Note that the proposals listed here (especially the second and third ones) have encountered resistance on their related talk pages and in many of the places they've been cited; after months of discussion, they seem moribund. In any case, templates like this are not to my knowledge commonly used even in relation to established policy, much less proposed-and-still-controversal policy; if you really want to refer someone to the relevent policy or proposals for an AfD discussion, a simple link within your own comments, properly signed, is much more approprate. Putting a big template broadcasting a policy proposal from above as though it was the Voice of God is not. --Aquillion 22:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This one is pretty misleading; it lacked even the word "proposed" at the top until I added it recently. -- SCZenz 22:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is also used on project front page. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were removed from AfD's, and not used in future ones, I might not mind keeping it--as long as there's a reason why you need to use it on more than one page! -- SCZenz 23:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being in use is not a criterion for keeping a template. They can be either a)orphaned or b)subst:ed+orphaned before deletion. -Splashtalk 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after subst:ing to the project front page. This is (or should be) a single use template, which we don't generally have any need for, besides a single substitution. That it is being used for internal 'advertising' of a proposal that is no more than embryonic is troubling. -Splashtalk 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Splash. I've been following the links back to the forums where the anon floods are coming from on some of these webcomic AFDs, trying to explain to people what's going on. The fact that the proposed WP:COMIC guidelines are often spoken of as if they were iron-clad rules generates a lot of confusion, and this template is no help whatsoever. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per A Man In Black. --Allen3 talk 00:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Usage gives the false impression that the suggested criteria have been accepted by the Wikipedia community. -Sean Curtin 00:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is misleading to say the least, and there's no reason for it to be used in AFDs. However, it should be substed into the project page. Titoxd(?!?) 01:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an ironclad rule, but one those who are interested in webcomics have discussed. Works well as a guideline. -Abe Dashiell 12:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No, it doesn't. There is no consensus to support these criteria even as guidelines. In fact, the consensus might be said to lean the other way, but the proponents of these criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics seem to be avoiding the current discussions of reasonable replacements for these guidelines, making it difficult to tell. But, regardless of the status of the criteria themselves, the template is being used misleadingly. (See also User:SCZenz/Webcomics.) -- SCZenz 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability criteria and re-write as a proper article: then you can link to it from a deletion discussion rather than transcluding it. One particular reason to avoid transclusion is that if your criteria change, then any old discussions which used the old criteria will suddenly have the new criteria displayed thereon, which might look somewhat contradictory: if you use a regular link you could therefore link to a particular version of the criteria. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after subst where it is needed. --Monkbel 16:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally misleading, no consensus. Ashibaka (tock) 23:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just link to WP:COMIC, it's shorter to type and people who aren't interested don't have to look at it. the wub "?!" 20:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move I'm with Phil. It's important that there be some sort of notability standard for webcomics. If this one isn't good enough we need to change it. but it should be an article not a template. Olleicua 13:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely agree with nom -- (drini's page|☎) 16:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clear consensus to delete. Those who suggested moving can find the ideas already in the 'article' given above. -Splashtalk 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:معلوماتی خانہ ملک

It appears to be a copy of Template:Infobox country, only translated in arabic. I'm not sure if it is very useful for the English wikipedia, so delete or transwiki. Titoxd(?!?) 04:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the same, then it's redundant thus Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 04:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the template talk page still exists? الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template: England national football team manager

Delete: This is a succession box template for managers of the England national football team. It is a duplicate of Template:Succession box, but it included an extra parameter {{{CoManager}}}. This parameter is essentially useless, since there has never been a time when the England side had two managers simultaneously [4], and indeed it was not used in any article in which the template appeared.

Therefore, I have converted all instances of this template to Template:Succession box, which conveys the exact same information, and fits in better when there is more than one succession box at the foot of a page, e.g. Kevin Keegan. The only pages that still link to it are user pages. It is effectively redundant and so should be deleted. Qwghlm 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. couldn't find any use for it. --Monkbel 17:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There have been times when the team has had separate manager and coach - couldn't the box be reworked to handle this instead of "co-manager"? Grutness...wha? 00:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Managers' and coaches' terms in charge of the side are rarely coterminous - some coaches have served multiple managers, and some managers have changed coaches midway through. It could get quite messy. Qwghlm 10:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicate of Template:Succession box. Titoxd(?!?) 00:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicate Youngamerican 05:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia

Redundant to Template:InterWiki --Hottentot.

  • Delete as per nomination --Monkbel 16:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This template could be good for an article with way too much crap floating right to begin with, but nobody's using it, so kill it. --Mm35173 20:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: NewBrunswickCopyright

Delete: We don't need another non-commercial template. Non-commercial images are not acceptable here. There's only one image linking it, and I've nominated that to IFD. Let's delete the template before people start using it.Superm401 | Talk 18:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, template cleanup to go along with the image cleanup is good. --fvw* 18:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I CSD'd the image (I3). --Mm35173 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The official government portrait of the sitting premier of New Brunswick is at minimum entitled to a debate about whether it qualifies as fair use. IFD was the appropriate mechanism here; CSD was not. Bearcat 05:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps... but remember, tagging with a CSD still allows editors to contest the CSD on the talk page. Admins are not to delete CSDs without doing a little homework first. Perhaps we should add an exception to CSD I3 that would encourge downsampling and fair-use tagging when appropriate. I don't think I did anything wrong (I followed policy)... but I think you are right; the policy didn't do this situation justice. I will propose a change to CSD. --Mm35173 16:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Part of the problem is that in order to be contested on CSD, an editor who knows the context and situation of the photograph has to notice that it's been listed on CSD before it gets deleted. That unfortunately doesn't always happen. Bearcat 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-gator1

Un-needed recreation of previously existing {{db|reason}} templates, created by user for personal use. Tried to re-direct to {{Db|bio}}, but user repeatedly reverted. Un-needed. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is what userspace is for. --fvw* 20:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to all of this and, after doing some speedy delete tagging, seeing that admins liked to see reasons and that none of the current templates comprehensively covered the reason I was actually seeing, I created a new one and used language straight from the policy (after correctign it with some help) It's not really for personal use, I've been using it for it's intended use on the RFC patrol. I'd love to get some help to make it better, but I think there is certainly room for anew template and we can always change the name of course. Thanks for th help Evil, I ony reverted because I think there's been a miscommunication and I always explained why I was reverting. No hard feelings of course. Thanks again!

Problem solved, thanks for the help. Feel free to delete it.Gator1 20:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unencyoclopedic

Created today by an anon. Not used anywhere, bad spelling. Delete --Sherool 18:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redundant with... um, {{afd}}? Titoxd(?!?) 19:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Uncyclopedia --ElvisThePrince 19:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, they mean very different things. Just plain delete. — ceejayoz ★ 01:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Titoxd --Rogerd 04:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If something is really unencyclopedic in a way that can be fixed, it should be tagged with the appropriate cleanup tag for the fix... and if it can't be fixed, it should be deleted, as noted above. --Aquillion 05:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_gtr-2

Made obsolete by the "guitar-x" series of templates. No one now uses this one. (the sole user was notified and fixed up) —deanos {ptaa*lgke} 15:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibirthday

Unused template containing a redlink to wikipedian birthdays. Nothing links to it, don't see any usefullness in the future. ∞Who?¿? 12:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. I completely agree with Who. Delete. -- SoothingR 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 22:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: EU Law

Delete: This template is used to provide a standard introduction into various articles. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Astrotrain 14:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, laziness. --Golbez 22:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, misuse of templates. Titoxd(?!?) 06:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only after major reworking. Something like it is required on the pages describing EU legislation, but it should probably be expanded to include all types of legislative acts and not only the secondary legislation. --Drdan 07:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've seen it on various articles and it's not all that great --TimPope 21:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Notvandalism

Delete: Silly-looking box meant to be left at the top of some articles for all time, apparently. There's nothing this template does that can't be done better using HTML comments. Carnildo 06:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do you know it's not vandalised? It might have been unlikely to begin with and then vandalised. Delete. --fvw* 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From Creator Not a problem with me as long as the average user can avoid an rv double take like I almost did today on Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga regarding the mantra called "Wikipedia". Carnildo, i'm only a so-so HTML editor, so I assume you're talking about a <comment> </comment> tage seen only in the editing page or something like that, which should be fine as long as it isn't inadvertently deleted during re-edits. Also, please avoid low level WP:CIVIL violations such as in the history of Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga [5]. Trust me, i've been down that road, and although you mean well, that tone will cause anger in alot of people which will just add to the exacerbation of pointless shouting matches over wording. Karmafist 06:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I back you 100% on the civility comment. "Stupid-looking" is a phrase that never has any use while editing Wikipedia. I've made that mistake myself, and gotten into long and unnecessarily hostile arguments because of it. -- SCZenz 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: potentially misleading, unless the page is protected immediately after applying the tag. Short of that, there' no way to verify whether a page has been re-vadalized after the tag was applied. — EagleOne\Talk 16:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... or, for that matter, whether the template has been added by a vandal. FreplySpang (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I rather like the thumbs up, but the template is too likely to be misleading. I second the suggestion of using HTML comments; that way at least nobody will complete an edit before they see that it's not vandalism, and the text can be specific to the seemingly-questionable fact. -- SCZenz 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Box-templates like this over articles are supposed to be temporary measures, used to encourage the resolution of a dispute... putting one over an article, as the nominator says, "for all time" doesn't strike me as the right thing to do. Additionally, it isn't very informative to place it over the top of a whole article when just one line or word (as in the Shin Megami Tensei article noted above) is really what sparked it. A better way to serve the intended purpose would be to reword the article to make it clear that the 'unlikely-sounding' bit in question is, indeed, true despite sounding unlikely, for instance, by explaining it in greater detail. --Aquillion 04:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wait till a vandal who knows anything about templates discovers this one! --Idont Havaname 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't hurt anything. Octalc0de 21:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Format

Delete: This template is harsh in its request for {{cleanup}} of a section or article or laying down the law. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 00:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was trying to find the comment that sayd "Add sections and format this appropriately", but the obvious one didn't exist so I created it. 68.39.174.238 00:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anon ;-). Thanks for replying. Consider reviewing Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. There are already quite a few message templates for requesting cleanup, copyediting, etc. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, ax it. 68.39.174.238 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Roby Wayne. — EagleOne\Talk 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then create it as a redirect to {{cleanup}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Destroy all data?" "Laying down the law?" This reads like a cleanup request written for evil supervillains. --Aquillion 04:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The law" redirects to File system, and in DOS/Windows parlance, formatting destroys all data on the partition and drops a blank filesystem onto it. It's a really bad pun. 68.39.174.238 20:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect CDC (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sympathize, but delete per above. Jkelly 03:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biovan

Useless fork of Template:Afd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded. Most vanity fails also under nnbio, and those who not could well use the standard AfD template and then explain on the discussion page the reasons of nomination. -- (drini's page|☎) 16:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Donotstealorlinkimages

Delete as a hoax. I should not create bogus templates or articles! RyanCahn

I found this at the bottom of the TfD page, so have moved it up here and formatted it properly. -Splashtalk 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary template Soltak | Talk 22:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, orphan template, and I sincerely don't see how this can be useful. Titoxd(?!?) 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River

Delete: No longer used; deprecated by Template:Infobox river. Wikiacc (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree with Wikiacc, and confirm that it's no longer in use. —Papayoung ☯ 01:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the new one. In this way, we can keep the history. Gerrit CUTEDH 16:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User want admin

Template is somewhat useless. We don't give out administrator status to those users who make a big thing of it, as far as I know. In addition, the creator (User:Adam1213) likely created this after making a big song-and-dance about his two failed Requests for Adminship, and supplemented it all with spamming Jimbo's talk page demanding adminship. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nomination. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom -- (drini's page|☎) 16:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I happened to see this on a user page several days ago and thought "hmm, that definitely shouldn't exist" but forgot about it. Now I happened to see people talking about this TfD so I think it should go. silsor 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a list of non-admins with high edit counts somewhere where you can note your interest in becoming an admin, and I think that's about the extent of advertising one should do about that. android79 16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't give out adminship on basis of "wanting" it. Often, asking for something is the surest way not to get it. Titoxd(?!?) 16:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. This nomination is absurd. Let people do what they want with their userspace, so long as it isn't harmful, and this clearly isn't. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then he can subst it. You might be unaware that the template is not in his userspace, so your entire argument is moot. Delete. --Golbez 20:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, I'm totally aware that the template itself is not in the userspace, but the fact that it is being used only in userspace should extend the privilege of userspace to the template. The only reasons to delete a template used in userspace, that I can see, would be (1) if the template is destructive or harmful, or (2) if it is only used by one user, in which case substing or userfying might be a better solution. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to object with the Template: namespace having protections similar to the User: namespace. That defeats the whole purpose of templates, to be able to offer a standarized interface to Wikipedia viewers. However, moving to the userspace is entirely acceptable, so I change my vote to delete or userfy. Titoxd(?!?) 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think in general that it should. However, when a template are being used in User space or Usertalk, I think it should recieve the same protections as User space in that 90% of users finding the template unattractive or useless shouldn't impose themselves on the 10% of users who like it. A template to be used in userspace should still have the attributes we usually associate with a template -- i.e. it's used in multiple places, it saves space in the wikitext -- but "somewhat useless" is not a good reason to get rid of templates that other people are using in their userspace. If you really want to get rid of something like this then, before you pull the trigger on deletion, talk to the people using it and ask them to drop it (which in this case probably would have worked just fine). Simple politeness to fellow users is a virtue. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Dan | Talk 21:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had that template but I thought that was a years old template fot if you have intrest on admin and I thought alot of users have or had that template until admin came but than I found out who the creator is........ --JAranda | watz sup 21:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if a user wants to be an admin she should nominate herself. BL kiss the lizard 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly --Rogerd 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I currently employ this template, although at the same time I don't really care if it gets deleted. The part I don't like is that Rob Church is taking a non-NPOV in his nomination by saying that "it's likely due to adam1234's song and dance after two failed RfA's. That is completely irrelivant to whether or not the template should be deleted. It makes it seem partially like a grudge match, delete someone's template for spamming Jimbo's page. I know Rob Church to be a good man, and this is nothing personal, but I just don't like the tactics employed in trying to get it deleted. --AppleBoy Talk 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Christopher Parham. Template not harmful or offensive, and also very unlikely to actually factor into RfAs. Why the fuss? Nobody really speaks leet, but we keep the template that says they do. Almost everybody wants to be an admin, yet we want to delete this template? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It will factor into RfAs. Users with this template will get Oppose votes as they do not believe adminship is "no big deal". Wikiacc (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is harmful to new users who think that it is part of process rather than one user's well-intentioned but misguided attempt at fast-tracking. It implies that the process works very differently than it does. — mendel ☎ 23:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooh, I should put this on my userpage :) Delete. «»Who?¿?meta 23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I threw this onto my userpage yesterday. I saw it on somebody elses and thought it was funny. More of a joke than something that should be taken seriously...—Gaff ταλκ 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ignore Rob Church's unfortunate text; I think mendel has hit on the best reason. I have no problem with someone having a template like this in their user space, certainly, but to have it in the Template namespace is to condone it as a method, isn't it? That's certainly how I (a newcomer) would interpret it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, it should be renamed to "user wants admin". "User want admin" has a very "Grog need fire!" sound to it. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, expressing desire to be an admin is condoned. What would lead us to believe that it's not? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's tacky and misleading. Users are welcome to use the format, but there's no cause to templatise it. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the argument that the template namespace gets the same protection as userspace would be valid, if only pages in the template namespace could be used like templates(i.e. including or transcluding(subst)). However, this is not true. Any page can be used as a template, just by surrounding it with {{, }} tags. So, leave templates that are inappropriate or opposed by most wikipedians out of the public areas, and put them in userspace. I'm tempted to vote keep on this, as it does provide a nice list of people who should never, under any circumstances, ever become admins, but that's probably a little too harsh, and some innocent newbies might be caught in it, so, *delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tacky and unnecessary. Gamaliel 07:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Davenbelle 08:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mainly as per Gaff. It's slightly frivolous, but who cares? The Land 11:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. It's been userfied now. use {{User:wantadmin}} instead. Thank you.
    • Note that this is unacceptable. That is obviously a role account, and a misunderstanding of the meaning of "userfy". I have listed the page for deletion, as a violation of WP:POINT. Userfy means to make it a subpage of an identified, real wikipedia user, not to create a new user account(sockpuppet) just for this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless.  Grue  17:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tacky. It feels like a political candidate legally changing his name to "President". DS 17:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think I'd use it, but there are some people who do, so there's no harm done in keeping it. --Idont Havaname 18:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have user templates for all sorts of things, why not this? One would think that it applies to a significant number of users, so the problem isn't being too specialized. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy per everyone else. I agree that its use is silly, but why is that a reason to delete? ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy. Slightly frivolous, but utterly harmless (I mean, it's just a template). Wikipedia is not a black-tie formal gathering where people can't use contractions and speak in absurd upper-class English accents. Plus, I like the title. Say it in your Strong Mad voice. "USER WANT ADMIN! USER WANT ADMIN!!!!" Lord Bob 15:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have RfA for theis kind of thing. / Peter Isotalo 09:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or keep, but everyone who uses it can never me made an admin. Broken S 21:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However I agrea that it probably should be at user:adam1213/template:User_ want_admin. I did not spam jimbo's talk page I only posted a small thing. Why cant someone with it be an admin? I dont see how that idea has a benifet please explain what benefit there is if there is one... --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 11:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think BrokenSegue's point is that use of this template demonstrates a lack of cluefulness about how we do things round here, like giving out sysop status for instance. The benefit, I suppose, would be that we can identify those users who, in the opinion of some, ought never to get adminship. Further to your other comment, it was considered wholly inappropriate by many users that you sidestepped RfA, but went to "whine" at Jimbo Wales; who has expressed previously a reluctance to get involved in matters that are driven by the community. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 16:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deabte has a fairly clear leaning towards deletion (numerically 20d-9k) mainly because people don't like what it implies. It has also been orphaned — the creator himself is not using it anymore. So I will userfy it per Adam1213's last comment, and delete the cross-namespace redirect.It has already been userfied to User:Adam1213/want admin. Splashtalk 21:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive

  • Delete: Clearly violates the spirit of Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Proponents claim it is only to protect mirrors; however, the template is visible on Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. They even tried to add it to WP:WWIN to self-justify. I removed it because it had no consensus. Indeed, it wasn't mentioned on talk at all. Superm401 | Talk 05:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, I think this can do good in that it will allow more users including minors, schools, religions and any others to be more accepting of Wikipedia by way of a different, less "offensive" mirror or fork version of Wikipedia. That is, "offending" material can be programatically be removed. There are various opinions of what is or not "offensive". However, it should do no harm in that you can still post up "offensive" images or materials -- Zondor 05:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again with the "content warning" templates. This is the only content warning we need. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete. Inherently PoV, violates WP:NOT If we ar to start addign some sort of content warnings to articels or images, ther must be consensus on a policy for when and how we should do this, and who/how a particualr case is to be decided. (A PICS-type system could in theory work, if we agreed on such a thing). Absent such a policy, this template and any similer template is out of line. DES (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. This particular bad idea has gone by a few times before. --Carnildo 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, biased it is. Then I shall be bold in my editing that I shall start Template:bodypart to link to Category:Images of body parts. -- Zondor 06:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Carnildo. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-19 T 06:43:18 Z
  • Speedy delete, prior deleted content.Gateman1997 07:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, anti-Wiki. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this old issue. — Davenbelle 09:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The Land 11:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The purpose of creating this template was not to censor material as many people think – I happen to be proud of my First Amendment rights. I created the original template because I felt that some content should simply be marked as potentially inappropriate for younger readers and/or other easily offended persons, for example to help parents keep their kids safe or to provide some sort of warning if anyone accidentally misclicked a link. Obviously the name wasn't the best choice but I wanted something fast and easy to remember.
    My idea for how it would work would be like follows:
    1. Certain pages (such as those relating to certain body parts which we generally do not discuss in public, or things related to really controversial stuff like Grand Theft Auto) could be marked with the template to serve as kind of a warning, like this: "Hey, just so you know this stuff may not be appropriate for all ages, reader discretion advised." The articles would be left otherwise intact, just like inserting any other template.
    2. If someone then opened a page – intentionally or otherwise – they would see the message and be given a chance to decide whether they need to be reading it or not.
  • Again, the idea was not at all censorship, just clearly marking content which some may take offense at. multima 11:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by the way, before you get any more stupid ideas: THIS IS NOT A {{delete}}-TYPE THING. The articles would not at all be deleted, merely marked in such a way as to allow users to decide for themselves whether or not to read it. I don't think it's anti-wiki at all.

OK, re-designed version at Template:Offensive/NewVersion.

    • comment Unless we first establish a policy statign that we will designate particular articles as needing "reader discretion", and establishing a mechanism or process for chosing which items should be so marked, I oppose the creation of any such warning tempalte or tag, or placing any such warnings in any form on any article or image. The choice of which items shall be so lableled and how the label shall be worded is inherently PoV. Al of wikipedia already is a "reader discretion advised' zine, that is what our general disclaimer is for. Warking our particualr ares is invidious and clarly PoV. DES (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. bogdan | Talk 15:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless we seriously plan to mark all pictures of women who aren't wearing a burqa. The selection of pictures that I've seen has been seriously POV, calling all pictures with nudity offensive.--Prosfilaes 16:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --cesarb 17:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons already listed. WP:NOT c------d for the protection of minors. --Idont Havaname 18:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever, wiki-assholes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinultima (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. violet/riga (t) 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff the actual template text is removed, to make it a stealth template. JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the debate on the stealth version, higher up on this page. i have voted delete on all versions. DES (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No warnings. Rhobite 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look: Template:Offensive/StealthVersion -- Zondor 04:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stealth versions are bad because tagging with them is still POV. ~~ N (t/c) 14:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too subjective. Kaldari 14:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could not hope to be NPOV. Jkelly 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Joy [shallot] 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd(?!?) 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then for the sake of consistency, get rid of the fucking "WARNING: PORNOGRAPHY" links on pages like List of shock sites so users will click here and see something rather undesirable without any warning. Hey, you said yourselves that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Oh, and please go fuck yourselves.

    By the way, all wiki messages on this are now going to be ignored so don't waste your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinultima (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significant difference between a link to a Wikipedia page and a link to an external site. If that it is not immediately obvious why, you may want to read up on Wikipedia or wikis in general; I'm afraid I don't know a specific section to point you to. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am well aware of that. I have been a Wikipedian for quite a while (some stuff I've written is on my user page, or just look at Vivian Vande Velde, QEMU, etc.) and am also administrator of a wiki for my own project. I do know how wikis display links differently depending on internal or external links and I have read through every last page of the style section.
The point I have been trying to make is that, while Wikipedia should not be censored, advance warning should be provided for certain pages which some may take offense at or otherwise not wish to see. Perhaps instead of a very subjective template there could be a user-controllable filter worked into the MediaWiki software itself that would allow everyone to choose for themselves what type of content can and can be displayed, but the point is there is some content that some people will need to see, and that others will not desire to have appear on their screen. By now I really don't care about how it's implemented, my point is that there should be a system.
By the way, a good deal of negative criticism about the wiki is aimed right at its lack of content control. While the ability to view and post anything is absolutely wonderful I really do think that certain content needs to be labeled properly. Would you like it then if we decided to no longer provide ratings on video games? Oh, wait, I know: Let's just link to the images on the Hot Coffee page and let anyone in the world see them. Graphic depictions of simulated sex for the masses! See how parents, schools, churches, and concerned individuals in general like that. I don't approve of outright censorship at all, but gentle content warnings are sometimes necessary.
So I hope that this helps to clear a few things up for you, seeing as you're just clueless otherwise.
multima 03:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly i do strongly disapprove of ratings for video games, movies, and the like. I cheered when the Comics Code Authority went bust. I won't buy a TV with a "V-chip" inside, and I am far less likely to contribute to a censored wikipedia. Taht said, limited nmon-coercive warnings that are unobtrusive and palced in accordance with an agreed policy, via a PICS or simialr scheme, might be a good idea. But this template isn't even a step in the right direction. DES (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, sir. "Ratings" are indirect censorship: certain ratings mean that certain places won't sell your movie, game, whatever, and if they did, they'd get protested. If books, opera, paintings, and life itself don't need ratings, neither do games or movies. Down with the status quo!! Er, sorry, I'm going off on a tangent. -Silence 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listen. The template wasn't the best idea, and I'll admit to it. And I don't like the "V-Chip" either, there's a reason all my TV equipment was made back in the 1980's before that stuff came out. Now, let me make one thing clear.
I'm not aiming for censorship.
What I am aiming for is a Wikipedia which will be much more accessible for a wider range of age groups and beliefs on different topics. I have come up with a basic plan which would outline how the system I've envisioned would work if it had been done the way it was supposed to, and have no problem if anyone wants to contribute or make changes.
The problem is, while I don't want censorship, I also don't want to just click a random link and find myself looking at a picture of a guy's ****, and I don't want to see every third-grader with a modem able to see the Hot Coffee screenshot so conspicuously displayed where the entire world will notice. It's a tricky thing to balance all this but someone's got to do it.
multima
  • Delete--Pamri • Talk 08:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. People have been going crazy about advertising issues lately, but personally, stuff like this horrifies me much more than even the most obnoxious banner or pop-up ads could. The day Wikipedia decides to align itself with a specific, narrow conception of what is or isn't "offensive", the day it decides to acknowledge and codify a universal social morality, especially one so ridiculous as "offensiveness" (pixels and text on a computer screen cannot hurt anyone—except as much as they choose to hurt themselves) is the day the dream truly dies. -Silence 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Irish hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been replaced by the generic infobox at WikiProject Mountains Grinner 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Irish hills (no image)

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been replaced by the generic infobox at WikiProject Mountains Grinner 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive/NewVersion

Same reasons as {{Offensive}} below. Inherently PoV, and contradicts WP:NOT policy. DES (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --cesarb 17:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again.Gateman1997 17:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cesarb. --Idont Havaname 18:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but see my comments at the listing for the original one. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:POINT. — Davenbelle 03:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEEEEEEEP!!!. Just kidding, Delete. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as with Template:Offensive. Rhobite 03:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look: Template:Offensive/StealthVersion -- Zondor 04:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-20 T 09:17:50 Z
  • Delete, inherently anti-Wiki. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{My usual comments why we should not have these templates}}--Clawed 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per usual. Kaldari 14:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; looks like I'm late to this party, but delete. Almost anything is offensive to someone, and use of the template is impossibly subjective. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could not hope to be NPOV. Jkelly 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd(?!?) 22:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks for nominating, DES. As per nominator, unacceptable for same reasons {{Offensive}} is. Superm401 | Talk 00:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. "The content which follows may be considered potentially offensive to some audiences." This warning applies to every article on Wikipedia, and, indeed, every website in existence. Everything is offensive to someone. If a user finds an article offensive, the article's very name and introductory paragraphs will undoubtedly make that clear much better than just assuming that one topic is more inherently "offensive" than another. The same principle holds true for "importance": rather than editorializing about how "important" or "offensive" a certain thing is, just provide the facts about that thing and people will figure out if they are offended or interested quite quickly. -Silence 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: User_zb

delete: A hoax; the article "Zlatiborian language" is already deleted as a hoax. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • fierce keep. Despite the fact that Zlatiborian isn't a real "language", I feel that we need to allow users to claim whichever native languages they want, no matter how ridiculous. What language people want to claim, we should give to them. --Node 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although most linguists do not consider Zlatiborian to be a language, in the most recent Serbian census about 250 people claimed that their native language was Zlatiborian. I think that is a major blow against the argument that it's a _complete hoax_ (while it may not be a "language" per se, it can still have native speakers -- perhaps it should just say "zlatiborski" and not "zlatiborski jezik").
      • I would like to see the data about 250 people who say that their native language is Zlatiborian. If it is related to my email on the list, I said that if there are 250 people, it would be in statistics. So, there are no 250 people and there are no data about "Zlatiborian native speakers". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mark, this is a hoax, unlike Montenegrin. I never heard except on this Wikipedia that some people say that they are talking Zlatiborian. If it is OK to keep it, I would make a box for Belgradian and Zarkovian because I can say that those languages are my native languages. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realise that. I have followed the previous debate on Zlatiborian. As I said, we should allow users to claim whichever native language they want. If you want to claim you speak Beogradian and Zarkovian, I have no problem with you creating thosie templates. But, if you're NOT actually going to use them on your userpage, you should not create them (dont disrupt wp to make a point). --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made Template:User bel as well as I am starting to make templates for all regions from Serbia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's fine with me for you to create templates WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO USE on your own userpage. I doubt you will use any of those templates, and if you do, I think you will only use the Belgrade and Zarkovian ones, so if you create the others you will be disrupting wp to make a point. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And after regions of Serbia, I would continue with New York streets. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you going to use any of those templates? IF you are, I don't mind that you create them. But if not, DO not create them because it is disrupting WP to make a point which is a no-no. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course, I would use it because I know languages of every New York street at level 2, as well as level 4 of every Shtokavian based language. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are wobbling close to violating WP:POINT. I advise you to avoid crossing the line of actually doing it. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 17:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • If this template pass, there is no reason not to pass any "regional-language" template. No, I would not make templates for New York streets, but, for sure, I would make language templates for all regions which I feel like "my regions". As well as I would ask other people to do the same. If I go to New York and I start to feel some street as "my place", I would make the same for this street. For now, I made the template for Belgradian language. And, of course, if Wikipedians are reasonable enough to userfy/delete this template, I would ask for deletion of my Belgradian template. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Node, else userfy to the one guy who uses it. ~~ N (t/c) 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local dialects are not separate languages, at least not when they're not politically acknowledged. Keeping separate Babel-templates for them serves no purpose. / Peter Isotalo 08:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a user template, not article content. Having Babel templates for every imaginable dialect of every region, city, town, village and hamlet is pointless and clutters up the namespace. Wikipedia is not an anarchy and I'm not about to encourage this kind of dubious language separatism just to please a handful of users. / Peter Isotalo 09:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not advocating for templates for "every imaginable dialect". I think that they should be allowed, where demand exists. If nobody wants to add a Babel template for Newyorkian to their page, then there is no reason for the template to exist. But if more than one person wants to, why not let them? There is obviously the argument that eventually it may become a _real_ problem, with huge demands for astronomical numbers of babel templates. However, I don't see that happening, as MOST people don't claim to speak a "language" like Zlatiborian or Nuyorkian. If it ever _were_ to become a /real/ problem, we could cross that bridge when we came to it. --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE as fiercely as possible. This represents a disgrace, regression, spitefulness, monstrosity, abomination and a serious detriment. There is no reason whatsoever for "languages" like these to have their templates. I might as well create Pančevian language because I live in Pančevo, or better yet, Teslian, because the part of my town I'm living in is named after Nikola Tesla. This is absurd and I highly disagree with Node's comment, because if people want languages based on their absolute geographic location, there will be more Babel templates than eligible articles. --Dungo (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the thing is, people don't want to create these. How many people here will claim they speak Belgradian, or Zagrebian, or Krkish? My guess is 0. If somebody wants to claim they speak these "languages", I support them. But so far nobody does. So the thing you say about so many templates is purely fud. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonexistent language. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so! (from The Simpsons) Seriously, I think that Babel templates should be as clean as possible and that they should contain only true languages, whereas there could be some other templates created for fun purposes, like user fox or user 1337. So, the two should be separated into Babel and something different. Also, if a template like that is going to be used in only one user page, the user can simply, make templates in his own namespace (transclude subpages), or copy/paste the template source and adjust it or simply do what Angela said. --Dungo (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "True languages" is very POV. There is no concrete division between dialect and language, and nowadays many linguists opt for alternative terms so as to avoid the connotations of either term. Thus, they might say "The speech of Zlatibor", "The speech of Bosnia", "The speech of Russia", "The speech of Japan", rather than "Zlatiborian language/dialect", "Bosnian language/dialect", etc. There are basically no differences between the official forms of Moldovan and Romanian, yet for sociolinguistic and politicolinguistic reasons, they are allowed to be considered separate in some situations (30% of Moldovans claim Moldovan as their mother tongue). Now, obviously 250 people is a tiny minority of the population of Zlatibor, but we now have two users who claim that Zlatiborian is their mother tongue. See language, it explains very well that NO MATTER how sure you may be, there is no real line between a language and a dialect. Some people have said things like "well to be a separate language, it must have different grammar", but this is pure b.s because many widely recognised "languages" today are different really only on the bases of pronunciation and vocabulary, with few or no morphosyntactical (morfosintakticki??) differences. Thus, to claim that Zlatiborian, Bosnian, Spanish, or Quechua is a dialect of or a separate language from Serbian, Serbocroatian, Italian, and English respectively is considered by most experts to have been superceeded by the idea that they can be both, depending on what makes a language different from a dialect (most dictionaries describe a dialect as a "regional variant of a language" -- this is unhelpful. one could easily say that Spanish is a regional variant of Portuguese or vc-vrs). To say that we should only have Babel templates for "true languages" is an uninformed and indefensible statement based solely on the fallacious supposition that there really is a distinct division or a set of widely agreed-upon defining differences between what is a "dialect" and what is a "language". --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. I'm not a linguist, but no one can persuade me that Zlatiborian is a language in the strict sense of the word (which is very important seeing as Babel has to support some conventions). Just because 200 or so people speak in a way ever so similar to the Serbian language, it doesn't automatically make that speech a language. As far as I know, language needs to comply to certain conventions and you can't just arrange a meeting, have a vote and decide that a language is created. If that were the case, I'd stand corrected, but alas it isn't. Why you're on this pursuit is beyond me; nevertheless, I don't see how this speech can be proclaimed a language based on the fact that 200 Zlatiborians speak a variant of the Serbian language. Bottom line, this is all beside the point. I'm no linguist and I don't want to argue over stuff like this. I just what to make a point that not every so called "language" (the loose term) should be included in the Babel, because I see Babel as a place for every language. If you want to goof with things like that, don't make a template and/or use Uncyclopedia or whatever. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The point of the linguistic mumbo-jumbo above is that there is no real border between dialect and language. You said that "as far as I know, language needs to comply to certain conventions". This is not true. There is not even one widely agreed-upon convention for what is a language, and what isn't. Thus, Dungodungian is just as much of a language as Romanian. But do you declare Dungodungian as your mother tongue? No, you don't. There doesn't even need to be a meeting or a vote -- a dialect is just a synonym for language with different connotations. --Node 11:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems to me that we can only agree and disagree about what language is. Maybe some linguists question the definition, but I won't be convinced that "there is no real border between dialect and language". I've learned in schools that there IS a distinction between the two and it seems incomprehensible to me that you can equalize them. All in all, *this* is not what we should talk about, but rather about this template. Again, you and I disagree about its presence here, but it seems to me that you've been outvoted and that people generally agree with the fact that the template should be deleted. As far as I'm concearned, the user (Alexandra) can use it on her own page, but she should not waste Template: namespace. Sapienti sat. --Dungo (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonexistent language. --Elephantus 10:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonexistent language, fully agree with Dungo. -- Arwel 13:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I must agree with Alexandra. Language used in Pancevo, Belgrade, and other cities of Serbia is Serbian, but Zlatiborian is different: while a Belgradian or Pancevan would say Lepo vreme, lepi ljudi, lepe face Beograda and Ovde je sahranjen moj deka kojega sam mnogo voleo, а Zlatiboian would say Lijepo vrijeme, lijepi ljudi, lijepa lica Biograda and Vodje je saranjen moj djedo kog sam mnogo volio, etc. It is similar, but many languages are.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 14:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's iyekavian Serbian standard with one or two location-based words that differ from the "Belgradian or Pancevan". What we're talking about here is merely a dialect of Serbian language and BTW, I thought you were over this, Djorđe. --Dungo (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, come on. Remind me why Serbian is a real language separate from Bosnian and Croatian?? That is nearly as much or as hardly ludicrous as the claim that there is a real Zlatiborian language. Serbian language is a nationalist fiction, and its consideration is more one of sociolinguistics than the sort of careful areal linguistic analysis with which we would expect "lang" vs "d.t" to be judged on given the purported existence of "true languages" (this is acc'd to you). --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's really unfair (and you know it) to include Bosnian and Croatian. Those languages (+Serbian) diverge more every second and they were separated strictly because of political reasons. There is no such thing when we're talking about Zlatibor. It's a part of Serbia and the chances are it'll stay there for a long time. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need for a template used by only one user. Subst it onto the user page and delete it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlatiborian speech for the deletion of the page on this language. Angela. 19:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, it's a hoax, but userfy also works too. Titoxd(?!?) 19:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Given that the language doesn't exist I can't imagine more than one person really wanting to use this, but there's no reason why that one person can't. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. Userfy is enough good for this case. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Userfy - if someone wants to put this on his userpage, there is no problem with it. It will only be used in the User:-namespace. Who cares? What's the problem? Gerrit CUTEDH 08:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. There's absolutely no reason that "we need to allow users to claim whichever native languages they want, no matter how ridiculous". If it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in template space. It can still be a user template, or someone can just add it to their page manually. However, since it's not a real language, it shouldn't have a real template. It's that simple. Superm401 | Talk 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Userfy if needed, per resons stated above.
  • delete: a hoax. I'm typically pro giving anyone a right to do or say stupid things (to the extent of not harming other person's freedoms), but this is an encyclopedia (an encyclopedia people should be able to trust), and this kind of information could easily mislead someone into mistake. So if there are a lot of Non-language Babel entries ({{user fox}} for example), visitors can easily identify them as jokes, but if someone isn't really familiar with European linguistics, he will believe that there really is such thing as Zlatiborian language (and may embarrass himself somewhere and never trust Wikipedia again) -- Obradović Goran (talk 12:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonexistent language, fully agree with Dungo and Obradovic Goran --Jovanvb 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you follow 'What links here' on the template page, you'll see that two users, not one, speak the language.
    • Wow! Me and a friend of mine speak English when we hang out, but once in a while we coin a new funny word. I guess we speak Fenglish and I can make a template. Not good enough, I'm afraid. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's the harm in having this? If someone wants to claim it as their native language, then we should allow them to do that. Nominating this template for deletion is like going around userpages and deleting claims about the people themselves that you don't like. User pages belong to the users themselves, and we shouldn't exercise this kind of totalitarian control over what they put there. - ulayiti (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy. This is not a user page, it is a template. There is a difference between just putting something on your userpage, and actually making a new page outside of the user namespace for your user page; on the user page and for the user page are not the same thing. It is easy to userfy things like these, and then you have the exact same information on your page, just without trivial template clutter. While there may not currently be much abuse of the Babel templates, that too-trivial templates are so far rare is not grounds for ignoring every trivial template that does get made. To do so will set a bad precedent for future template votes, making it increasingly more and more difficult to have any sort of minimum standard for what does or doesn't merit a template. When something can just as easily be accomplished without an off-user template as with one, when there is such a tiny demand for it, and when including it could make it impossible to delete just about any obscure language template anyone decides to make in the future, even though I tend towards inclusionism, I have to admit it's better to go with removal. -Silence 11:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonexistent language. Every language have dictionary and grammar, but zlatiborski don't. --Djordjes 13:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've subst:ed it, and will delete it. -Splashtalk 20:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chocolate and slavery

This type of political campaign is out of place in Wikipedia articles. The template is inherently POV. Uppland 19:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As the person who created the template, I object to its characterization as inherently POV -- but even more so that this was a "political campaign". It was created because the various chocolate company pages were getting lots and lots of POV edits regarding slavery. This was an attempt to reduce the POV-ness by reducing the amount of information on it while still permitting those interested in the issue to get to Chocolate and slavery. If template is deleted, expect major edit wars to reerupt (not involving me). Please check the history of the pages that currently link to this template before you accuse me of politicizing the issue or of deliberately introducing POV into the articles. --Nlu 19:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • N1u, if editors have something to say about the involvement of any specific chocolatier in contributing to the mistreatment of plantation workers, they'll have to do so in each individual article and support the claims with more than just circumstancial evidence. I've already pointed this out in Talk:Chocolate_and_slavery#More NPoV?. / Peter Isotalo 23:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insisting on mentioning this in a unified form in every article on a chocolate-related subject is POV. Mentioning particular chocolatiers' human rights records (if they are are documented) would not be POV. ~~ N (t/c) 20:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Prove the allegations on an individual basis or keep them in general articles like chocolate or chocolate and slavery. / Peter Isotalo 23:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - feel free to add notes to the relevant talk pages that refer to other discussion, but standardization like this just looks like an attempt to cut off legitimate debate. CDC (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 05:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no need for this information to be standardized. If it is relevant and NPOV, include it in the prose of the pages you would have tagged with this template. Philip 05:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Peter Isotalo. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Philip, this message is better addressed using specific evidence relevant to each page. Superm401 | Talk 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mallorca infobox

This was created by an anonymous, unregistered user, and is only currently used on Mallorca. Since I cannot see any other page where this template might be used, I think we should "subst" the template code directly into that article, then delete it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive/StealthVersion

Delete: Sneaky insertion of Category: Wikipedia offensive material. — Davenbelle 07:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-20 T 09:17:44 Z
  • Delete, inherently anti-Wiki. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No there is nothing sneaky about it. The category should be renamed or removed. There are other stealth templates such as Template:Interwikiconflict. -- Zondor 09:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC) "Offensive" can be renamed to something else like "objectionable" -- Zondor 09:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This proposal (censorship tagging) has been rejected time and again under many names. --FOo 10:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{My usual comments why we should not have these templates}}--Clawed 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:POINT. Please stop creating new offensive material templates. Rhobite 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, offensiveness marking is POV no matter what. ~~ N (t/c) 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose. Kaldari 14:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete Absolutely any attempt to indicate that certian pages are offensive ot contain offensive content is inherently PoV. Who deciedes. The fact that this version is realaitely unobtrusive makes that worse, not better. Please don't create any more versions of this template. DES (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am offended being labeled offensive.  ;-) -->: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 16:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a stealth template as it contains a category. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inaccurate, POV. Jkelly 03:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd(?!?) 22:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; same as below {{Offensive}} nominations. Superm401 | Talk 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: for any number of the reasons above.—Gaff ταλκ 07:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Pointless. Even if a category for "offensive" material was acceptable, why make a blank template for it when you can just categorize things manually? Especially when the Template's name isn't short enough for it to be an expedient. -Silence 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: WorldTagTeamChampions

Delete: This table is huge and it's only going to get larger as new champions are added to it. It restates information available in the in-depth List of World Tag-Team Champions and since the table is so big it's difficult to serve as a useful form of navigation. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Delete - ↪Lakes 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. McPhail 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take from articles. i guess we should delete it but i think we should keep one copy (just cus alot of effort must have went into that)... also we must remeber all these tables are going to get this size sooner or later -- Paulley 18:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yeah, but this is the largest one. Also, if any of the other tables get to be really big, they would probably be a lot less useful as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst into List of World Tag-Team Champions (which could actually use it) and replace with {{otherarticles-alph}}. Septentrionalis 19:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 11:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *drew 07:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - Anonymous ??:??, 22 October 2005 (UTC) - split it into Tag Team Champions by decade. Eg. Tag Team Champions, 1980-1989.
  • Delete. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as per the Anonymous guy above Delete. I don't know what I was thinking (how do you split a template)--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm sorry about that, guys, just do with it as you wish. I didn't know when I made it that it would be that large. --FPAtl 06:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off with its head! Redundant and unwieldy. B.Wind 00:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White Rajah

Delete: Serves no purpose. Technically the content seems like an article. It is re-created (see here). --*drew 08:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, as it falls under CSD G4 (recreation of previously deleted content). Titoxd(?!?) 08:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - page has gone now as there was no source for image and user notified under speedy criterion. Justinc 12:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-AIC

I don't like the idea of specialized POV templates. First, it's instruction creep. Second, shunting articles aside in a subcategory of Category:NPOV disputes might distract attention from articles that need it. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've also nominated the category it populates, Category:Arab-Israeli conflict NPOV disputes, for deletion here. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Whoops, didn't realize the cat would be automatically deleted and the CFD would be unnecessary. Eh, you live and learn. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 07:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You're correct. Also, besides being unnecessary, the template's POV in itself. Why is the Arab-Israeli conflict such an important POV dispute? Superm401 | Talk 00:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concurring with Superm401. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we had content-specific NPOV notices, I would shutter to think the templates we would see.--Pharos 09:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that this NPOV notice is not NPOV. Also it is hideous. -Silence 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Junior High and Secondary School

Delete:: I created this template as part of the WikiProject Schools because this template allowed a listing for additional administrators (vice principal, guidance counselor, etc.) What I did not realize was that another template, Template:U.S. School, could be modified to allow the extra members of the adminstration to be listed, so as such this template is unnecessary and should be deleted.--D-Day 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I would have said speedy delete under CSD G7, but Sasa Stefanovic has modified it, so that won't work. Titoxd(?!?) 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 07:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Untrustworthy

Delete This template is POV. It states that the contents in the article are not trustworthy and that one should proceed with caution. It is also a borderline Wikipedia:Disclaimer_templates. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. Speedy deleted and moved to BJAODN.  Denelson83  08:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:XGSC image

All images which used this template have been moved to commons, and there is no reason why any future images should be uploaded here instead of in commons. See commons:Template:XGSC image. Thue | talk 21:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Politician

One look at it shows why it should be deleted or BJAODN'ed. POV.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USactpresidents

David Rice Atchison cannot be president, as he has been dead for 119 years. (Joke template.) -Silence 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Officially, only two Acting President of the United States have ever existed: GHWB and Dick Cheney. Templates for only two articles are extraneous and clutter up important pages; just mentioning it in the text of the article makes more sense.[reply]

It's a joke based on the longstanding legend that Atchison briefly served as president between two actual presidents' terms. Atchison was never officially president, but the creator of this template decided to have a little ha-ha about the fact that he was never sworn out, therefore one could still consider him president along with George W. Bush, by some elaborate mangling of the way U.S. presidencies work. And then I think he also included "Dick Cheney" to allude to the common joke about Cheney being the president for all practical purposes, the guy "pulling the strings" behind Bush. In both Cheney's and Atchison's cases, it's untrue, and that would leave a whole redundant template for whoever's the current president, which is already covered by the U.S. presidential succession box. Get the joke now? -Silence 04:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps Atchison should be removed, then, but GHWB (which you incorrectly changed to the current Bush) and Dick Cheney were both Acting President briefly, right? (Search for acting in either of those articles.) Both for colon-related reasons, interestingly. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article from NPR is a good confirmation, if you'd prefer a non-Wikipedia reference. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Urk. Confused "acting president" with "current president", assumed bad faith, jumped to huge conclusions, failed to check all relevant links before VfTing. How world-shatteringly mortifying. That, or not a big deal and just a silly mistake. Either way, ignore all my comments about it being a joke. (I think. It still almost reeks of parody.) Though now I have a totally unrelated new justification for TfD: Do we need a template that only relates to two people? There, much better. -Silence 05:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't need a template that big for just two people. :) I'll see if I can trim it down a bit. Maybe this could just be a category instead? —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize, a template for only two Vice-Presidents is unnecessary. Titoxd(?!?) 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is a category or a template (even a small template) necessary for only two people? The whole points of templates and categories of this sort is to easily navigate fairly long lists of links and thus quickly reach the many other people who have something in common with the guy you started from! When there's only two people, the usefulness is very minimal, no matter how small the template is (and it's much more managable now, at least). I'm sure in a few decades we'll probably have a couple more Acting Presidents to add to the template and it'll be somewhat useful then, but until that happens I really don't see the point. -Silence 23:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To boot, there is already a very detailed article, Acting President of the United States, that lists people who have held the title. I believe both (or all three) pages about said people already link to that article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a president of the United States, and the Acting President does not need to take the oath of office to assume presidential powers. Atchinson was the next in the line on that day, even if nothing important happens. And, in an era of modern medicine, the category of acting presidents is only going to grow, so what the heck?! Staxringold 12:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The office of "Acting President" was not established until 1967; read the article. Even if there always has to be a president, Atchison was not "Acting President", and by all credible accounts on the matter, he wasn't president at all—read his article, and if you disagree with the information there, provide counter-arguments and cite sources for them. The place to start trying to change history is at the article itself, not sneaky, behind-the-scenes templates intended to go around normal channels of source-checking. Moreover, improvements in technology are likely to decrease how often presidents are incapacitated and require . I expect that, yes, the number will grow, but at an enormously slow rate: based on past events, probably an average of one a decade. So, feel free to re-introduce it in 20-30 years, when it actually may be of any use. -151.188.16.40 13:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of a Template fo Acting President(s) of the United States ,how about puting (since these 2 acting presidents were still at that time Vice President), GHW.BUSH & Cheney serving as Acting President as a side-note in Bush & Cheney's Vice President of the USA templates, Don't Make a seperate Template for Acting President of the USA. My Example Below. Mightberight/wrong 18:53, 28 October 2005.


EXAMPLE:

Preceded by Vice President of the United States
January 20, 2001- present , Acting President: June 29, 2002 		Succeeded by
incumbent
I actually love that idea, I'll go do that. Staxringold 16:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox formerband

Unused. Found in the main namespace with an incomplete afd stuck to it. Be sure and delete its redirect regardless if it survives. —Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used in the Five article. It can be used for other defunct bands. Sarz 06:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country2

Unused. Found in the main namespace with an incomplete afd stuck to it. Be sure and delete its redirect regardless if it survives. —Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Town noE, Template:Infobox Town noCM, and Template:Infobox Town noC

All three of these templates are now redundant and currently unused in any articles after the recent changes to Template:Infobox Town. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MobilePhoneNetworks

I bet we don't need a box bigger than most of the articles in it. Snowspinner 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You win. Delete or listify and delete. DES (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and categorize. Titoxd(?!?) 23:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and categorize. *drew 01:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could it not be broken down into several smaller templates for each region and another for multiregional companies? Our Phellap 15:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be so broken down, but IMO a list would serve the function better. the list could have regional sections. DES (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a list would be better than this large template, but I also think that smaller regional templates would also be useful. So listify and create smaller regional templates. Our Phellap 23:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are already smaller regional templates, at least for the couple of articles that I looked at. Annihilate after listifying. BlankVerse ∅ 10:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True - there are already templates for at least Canada and USA. There probably ought to be one for Europe, Asia, Australasia and South America too. Our Phellap 21:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afdm

Fork of Template:Afd for a non-existent analogue to WP:AFD, Wikipedia:Articles to move. I replaced it on List of sexual slang and Body parts slang with the standard afd template, since the articles to move subpages were redlinks, and the articles for deletion links were hard to spot. An separate articles-to-move process wouldn't be terribly helpful anyway; the volume's too low. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki.) —Cryptic (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as instruction creep. I've seen a few debates over moving content to other WP-related sites and never had any problem with simply using the talk page to mull it over or take a vote. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these are handled by our current AFD process, no need to have a separate template until the new process is created, if it is created. Titoxd(?!?) 23:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoogleCRAWL

The template appears to be a warning similar to Template:AOL, but its creation was misguided - the creator is confusing Google's WAP proxy with Google's web indexing bot. If people are using Google's WAP proxy for vandalism, they should be blocked from editing just like any other vandal. This won't affect the Googlebot, which does not edit Wikipedia. The warning is incorrect and unnecessary. Rhobite 19:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ~~ N (t/c) 19:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dangerous, as it shields vandals for no reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blocks don't affect users' reading anyway, and I have read the discussion on WP:AN/I - this is complete nonsense; an attempt to shield what are, in my suspicion, a number of open proxies used en masse by vandals. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Playstation Portable

Delete: It isn't being used by any articles and not really needed for the PlayStation Portable article since the links on the template are already in the relevant sections.  Thorpe talk 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete. Small amount of links, all of which can be covered in either a "see also" section or within the article itself. -Nameneko 04:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was an unfinished attempt to create a navigation template for the PSP articles. Ihad almost forgotten about this! Sorry about that 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC+2)TheWikipedian
  • Delete. Make the links part of the see also sections on the related articles. — Instantnood 14:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Felonious

'Delete': Highly POV and just plain silly. See also Template:Politician below. SCZenz 09:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, since this one does count as an attack template. Titoxd(?!?) 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I'm almost tempted to say BJAODN just because of the "proceed with extreme caution" part. Nevertheless, it is a POV attack, and should be deleted quickly. -Nameneko 04:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. And, oh yeah, I put it in BJAODN'd for you. I know WP:NOT a crystal ball, but WP:IAR - this was too funny to not put in there. --Mm35173 13:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/October_2005&oldid=149695234"