Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22

< May 21	May 23 >

May 22

Template:Lifetime

Context: Template:Lifetime through it three parameters add {{DEFAULTSORT: ZZZZ}}, [[Categegory:XXXX births]], and [[Category: YYYY deaths]].

This template complicates an otherwise simple process of adding a birth and death category and DEFAULTSORT. It impedes our ability to order categories as we see fit. It also decreases readability when editing categories on an article. Furthermore, arbitrary mass changes (31 for the minute of 17:37, 22 May 2008) sometimes improperly have created a real need for this issue to get formal attention. — gren グレン 22:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisyntax is hard for newbies and this template make it even harder. This template may make editing easier for some experienced users, but for the rest it is just another template we have to learn for something that we could do perfectly with regular wikisyntax. ~~I sugget that we keep the template, but have a bot a (smackbot?) go after us and subst it as we use it. That way those who are familiar with the template can keep using it~~. Rettetast (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily opposed to that but users using this template currently are not adding this where the templates didn't previously exist but removing the categories to add this template. gren グレン 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see from below that you can use {{lived}} instead and then it would be better to delete " lifetime. Rettetast (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problems occurred are many. Editors can use {{Lived}} which subst and is automatically replaced by defaultsort and the categories. Having this template around gives us 2 different ways to do things and this occurs to edit wars. Some editors are replacing defaultsort with this one and some other are doing the opposite. The other way is simpler (no need to read instructions of one more template), it's more clear, better in searching. Even if I liked this template in the beginning, now I think we have to delete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Template was previously named {{BIRTH-DEATH-SORT}} and was considered for deletion on 2008 January 30. The result of that discussion was to keep. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, because I am the one who nominated. The result was keep against the old lifetime. We had two templates doing the same job and we kept the least worse. It's seems now that we don't need any. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with User:Rettetast: I don't like templates that force editors to learn a specific wiki syntax that can be handled with a simpler, more intuitive process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cons outweigh the few pros for this template. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template handles missing birth years and living people categories. It is much easier to update from missing to a specific year, and it reminds editors to keep living people in the right category so they can be monitored more easily for BLP violations. Once both birth and death years are known, it seems wise to subst the template, but not before. It certainly seems unwise to delete the template. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond the birth and death categories, this template also adds articles to the Living people or Birth year missing categories. Gary King (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C This can be done by adding the correct categories as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. But it's a useful template for those who know how to use it. An article's birth and death dates are also unlikely to change often, so it won't be information in an article that will be edited a lot. Gary King (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline telling that "if both born and death categories exist, lifetime should not be used" would be sufficient? Because, we certainly need something more specific here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't lifetime be used if both birth and death years are known? Lifetime works when either the birth or death year are known, or when they are both known, or when neither are known. It can be used in all circumstances. For An Angel (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This template is easy to use, more functional and efficient than using defaultsort by itself. How hard is it to understand {{lifetime|birthyear|deathyear|sortkey}}? If someone doesn't know how to use it then they don't have to use it. Let those who know how it works add it to articles. Or you can put in the few seconds it takes to learn how to use it yourself. But there's no reason to delete it. For An Angel (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep {{BD|19xx|19xx|Name}} is one of the nicest things to have on wiki, has the required info in compact form. Excellent template, I can not understand why anyone would want to delete it. It "complicates" nothing, au contraire. "impedes our ability to order categories as we see fit"? I've seen articles were year of death was given before birth, or the years placed arbitrarily among professions. I expect to see birth/death by default at the very beginning of the cat list, just like in the intro, which starts with Name and Lifespan before anything else. I am among those who often replace Defsort and the two categories with the neat BD, BTW. (edits conflicts, I hate them) -- Matthead Discuß 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see no problem caused by the use or existence of this template. If an editor dislikes it so strongly, then just don't use it - it's not a requirement to use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless sugar for old hands, confusing for newbs. Hesperian 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, I think "subst:Lived" is easier. Secondly, even if we keep it, we certainly have to make more specific guidelines. Is replacement of defaultsort+2 cats with lifetime a nice edit? Do you accept that? Because, I usually do the opposite. I replace lifetime with ds to help new editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be to have a bot substitute this template (maybe only when birth and death years are entered). I would be fine with this, since the primary reason I use this template is for convenience, and as I said, the information is very unlikely to change. Gary King (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful and valuable template. I only discovered this a couple of days ago, but am glad I have, as it's much simpler and quicker than adding the categories separately. True, it's not immediately obvious what it does - one way in which {{Lived}} is better - but generally this is a helpful template. Terraxos (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How many new editors add DEFAULTSORT and cats such as birth year, living etc. to articles anyway. In one template it does the work of several categories. I am not sure how much more difficult it is for newcomers anyway; I found the whole DEFAULTSORT template horribly unintuitive when I was new and lifetime appears cleaner and more intuitive to me. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent template, eminently useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful shorthand for common stuff, especially correctly dealing with stuff that is otherwise usually omitted, like the living-people and date missing categories and their intersections. --Delirium (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that user:Archanamiya has been on a rampage recently adding this template at the impossible rate of almost one article per second and making many mistakes along the way. Many people have left comments on his talk page explaining to him what he's doing wrong but he doesn't seem to notice them. But that doesn't mean that the template should be deleted. For An Angel (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user has stopped. I suspect that this WP:TFD will fail, with no consensus reached. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like to ensure that the articles I edit have the appropriate DEFAULTSORT and birth/death categories, but I can never remember all the various syntaxes offhand. The Lifetime template simplifies this immensely and I find it very heuristic and intuitive. Leofric1 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see the usefulness, but I think it's unnecessary and too complicated for what it does; as another editor said, the cons outweigh the pros. faithless (^speak) 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Categorising articles is an easy thing to do as a new editor and this makes it harder for people to understand as the template gives no indication as to what the numbers or anything are for, or even that it is for categorisation. This is especially true if just BD is used. All it is doing is creating a dependence on a template for something that shouldn't. Categorisation and DEFAULTSORT are easier to learn, and can be applied to ALL articles. This is biography specific and needs to be learnt in addition to the standard method and creates confusion between the two for those who do not know the difference. It is often stated that Wikipedia makes it hard to start editing articles, and this definitely does not help. matt br 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This template is easy to use and very useful. New editors can still use DEFAULTSORT and birth/death categories, if they do not know who "Lifetime" works. Doma-w (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for the record. The reason that triggered this discussion is a series of edits like these. Some users are misusing lifetime. Morever, the discussion should give an answer to this question: Which should we consider as "standard form". Can I go and delete defaulsort to add lifetime or the opposite? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to comment. That is an issue with a user, not an issue with this template. The incorrect application of LIFETIME could just as easily have been done to DEFAULTSORT, as those wonky edits all appear to be sort key mistakes. Ford MF (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about one user. It's also an argument for mandatory subst: since most of the articles this is used in were perfectly well categorized to begin with and have had it templatized for no ... whatever reason. gren グレン 09:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If an editor has it together enough to use DEFAULTSORT, they've got it together enough to use LIFETIME. And if they don't, the introduction of new templates will cause them no harm, as they likely aren't using many templates anyway. And if an experienced editor doesn't like it, there's nothing compelling them to use it; they can continue to ignore it without consequence. I quite like it, personally. Seems marginally simpler than, and therefore superior to, {{lived}}, since you don't have to type out b=, d=, &c. Am I missing something? Ford MF (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is obviously useful and a step in the right direction. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and intuitive.-gadfium 08:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A nice and useful template.--Jaellee (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep. If it is deleted, all these pages will be devoid of birth/death info. That's the only reason. The creator of the template went on a rampage enforcing his will without discussion, and ignored consensus. I never support that kind of rouge editing. -- Elaich ^talk
Keep and improve. Ideally, templates that populate categories from input parameters should catch when the populated categories do not exist. Suggests to create two hidden categories: Category:Articles with invalid year of birth parameter in template and Category:Articles with invalid year of death parameter in template, and modify the template code (sorry for the lost line formatting due to the "nowiki" tag):

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:"{{{3|}}}"|""||{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{3}}}}} }} [[Category:{{#switch:"{{uc: {{{1|}}} }}" | "MISSING"|"" = Year of birth missing {{#switch:"{{uc:{{{2|}}}}}"|"LIVING"|""=(living people)}} | "UNKNOWN" = Year of birth unknown | #default = {{{1}}} births {{#ifexist:Category:{{{1}}} births||[[Category:Articles with invalid year of birth parameter in template]]}} }}]] [[Category:{{#switch:"{{uc: {{{2|}}} }}" | "LIVING"|"" = Living people | "MISSING" = Year of death missing | "UNKNOWN" = Year of death unknown | #default = {{{2}}} deaths {{#ifexist:Category:{{{2}}} deaths||[[Category:Articles with invalid year of death parameter in template]]}} }}]] </includeonly>

The modified code has been briefly tested in a sandbox, and seems to work as intended. Oceanh (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: If this template is kept, then AWB must be updated as it automatically mangles the categories when this template is used. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful and easy to understand. I don't see a large learning curve for newbies and several vandals have figured it out as well. As an aside, I like that it's not in all caps as opposed to DEFAULTSORT. If it's worth anything, at least it's not a pain in the ass to type out. Dismas|^(talk) 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as templatecruft: makes things harder, not easier, for new editors to understand, unnecessary for experienced editors, adds extra complications for data reusers. Its unnecessary use has already screwed up the carefully entered defaultsort info for a significant number of articles. -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the above discussion shows, many users find it easier to use this template than to type out all the categories. Also we have a problem with drive-by-editors that see an error in an article and when he tries to update the birth year he does not understand the syntax. I understand that this template does things that {{subst:lived}} doesn't. Is it possible to subst this template so that the categories is shown in the usual manner. If not, is this possible to achieve? That way we all get what we want. Experienced editors can use a shorter template and it will be easier to understand the syntax. Rettetast (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Useful template that saves time and effort in entering defaultsort and year of birth/death categories. Also it helps populate articles with the birth/death categories (one of more of which can easily be missed without it). Jogurney (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Highly useful, easy-to-use template. Getting around the DEFAULTSORT is easy enough if you need it to be done. I see no reason to jettison it for all the good it does. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this template does the job better than birth and death categories, especially in the case of year of birth missing. Don't see the problem with understanding its syntax. Punkmorten (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An elegant improvement on the cumbersome birth/death category scheme. I don't think this is difficult to pick up at all; sandwiched between non-breaking spaces and dashes, citation templates for sources, infoboxes, persondata, and seas of cleanup tags, this makes life easier for new people. Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this template simplifies an otherwise tedious process of adding a birth and death category and DEFAULTSORT (to take the words out of the mouth of the nominator). This template saves a lot of time and not least hassle when creating biography articles, and is an inevitable tool for biography article creators. If mass changes or vandalism is a problem, instead consider protecting it than nominating it for deletion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per User:Arsenikk. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it doesn't have to be used so the argument that it's confusing for newbies is irrelevant (otherwise there would be no wiki templates!!) but it is very useful, labour saving template which combines several functions in one and ensures category order is consistent. Thaf (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we have to start a discussion in template's talk page based in two questions: a. Should we add in the intructions: "If Category:xxxx births, Category:xxxx deaths exist, lifetime must not be used" ? and b. D you agree with the improvements proposed by Oceanh? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I love this template and use it all the time. And yes, I do remove the three separate lines and put this template in their place (never subst'ed) when I'm editing, as it makes the categories listing much easier to read and understand. If anything, I'd suggest it be made into policy to always use {{Lifetime}}. It tremendously helps categorization of biographies, and by it being required that it go before the other categories, it also helps standardizing where the birth, death, living etc. ones appear in the final rendered list, causing Wikipedia to become more consistent for readers. -- alexgieg (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Overly complex for some users. Too easy to mix up the dates. Alternatives exist. Scanlan (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or maybe make people subst: it... I think we should make things as simple as they can be, but not simpler. I don't see how this is an advantage to DEFAULTSORT and the birth/death cats: there is no improvement. As per mattbr, it is confusing for newbies in the fact when they are learning wiki syntax, seeing this and DEFAULTSORT mixed up will confuse people, and some won't realise the birth/death cats exist because they aren't explicit in the editing page. If people find it easier to type out, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be subst'd (by a regular run of a bot, say). Severo^TC 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Seems way too confusing to me. Jared Preston (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or make it "must-subst", per Severo. Having both forms around is clearly going to unnecessarily complicate matters, and forcing to standardisation on the template is just busy-work, and introducing a completely pointless single-point-of-failure. Alai (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that this may be kept if subst'ing is required. Some users seem to find it useful but most use the DEFAULTSORT and cats on their own and their inclusion on articles should be obvious and clear not hidden within this template. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After testing out the use of this template, I see that subst'ing it is even worse than leaving the template. The categories and defaultsort should be in plaintext in the edit window not hidden in a template. DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the DEFAULTSORT it is far less complicated. The option of using it should be continue. Thank you RFD (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complicated and completely unnecessary. At least do not convert existing articles that properly use defaultsort, and birth/death category - unnecessary waste of time & resources. Renata (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve - it simplifies things. Ian Cairns (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It works & people use it. I prefer for articles to have the raw code, as it helps learning, but people should be able to use this as a shortcut and have a bot replace it with the raw code. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, substituting it makes a lot of sense. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm struggling to see it being confusing to a new editor, or more specifically a new editor that was able and willing to put the brainpower to understand the Category and DEFAULTSORT features. It's one of the more intuitive templates in its naming and parameters.
Keep As Per above arguments. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make susbst-only. Yes, experienced Wikipedians may not realise it, but every template makes editing more confusing for newcomers, and newcomers are traditionally treated very gently here. If this template saves a couple keystrokes, substing it makes some sense, but keepingh it in article text forever is tempaltecruft and fails Occam's razor. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see many people here commenting how supposedly confusing this template is to newcomers. How come? I was a newcomer until a few weeks ago, and at the very first instant I saw this template, what I think happened at my second day editing, I understood its purpose. Really, it makes no sense to think that people willing to edit encyclopedia articles, of all things (for anything but vandalism, of course), are that much brain-dead. Don't you guys be so patronizing. If syntactic sugar has a place at all, it's here. Whatever makes editing easier is welcome. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment thats all the more reason to delete then -
    - Comment. All templates are syntactic sugar. No exception. Infoboxes? Can be done with wikisyntax. Let's delete them. Ditto for user boxes, message boxes, sortable lists, multi-column templates etc. So, no, it's not "all the more reason to delete then", unless you can provide the "more reason to not delete" the others. Templates are all about replacing repetitive tasks. Categorizing is a repetitive task. Ergo, categorizing templates are legit. -- alexgieg (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment #2: By the way: wikisyntax itself is nothing more than syntatic sugar for HTML tags. What's the advantage of [[Image:Bla.jpg|Description]] over <div style="float: right;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bla.jpg"><img src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bla.jpg" alt="Description"/></a><br/>Description</div>? None. So, let's do away with it and only keep wikitags that do something to the wiki software itself, such as meta-categorization. After all, there are much more people out there with HTML knowledge than with wikisyntax knowledge. Wikipedia is certainly confusing to them. ;-) -- alexgieg (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or force-subst. - Templates should not be a substitute for wiki syntax. If a user can grok what {{Lifetime}} does, he/she will also be able to use DEFAULTSORT. Note also that certain editors are going around replacing defaultsort+yob/yod with {{lived}}. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps: A subst: version apparently exists as {{Lived}}.
Keep - It encourages the addition of categories indicating what you don't know (Category:Year of birth missing (living people), etc) as well as what you do, which aids in cleanup -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template greatly simplifies the task of adding and maintaining sorting information, birth year, and death year categories for experienced editors who know to use it. A forced-subst version would be only marginally more annoying to add but would make the data harder to maintain. Additionally, it makes it more obvious when the birth and death information are missing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the instructions are good and can be found by going to the template page under the edit box as with any template, or it can be learned (as I for one do many things here) by comparison with its use on other pages; it does seem to (inclusively) put several ideas into one (for biography pages; Defaultsort remains when it is relevant for some other pages.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The simplicity is the best. It is already perfectly simple enough to add birth and death categories and default sort, and the template doesn't simplifies the process much; it only adds more (if not much) complication. -- Taku (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep The related categories may be needed. Kitty53 (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep It simplifies the process. Maybe it needs explanation like lifetime|b=XXXX|d=YYYY|sort=KEY. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gains very little and just adds more confusion for newbies. Moondyne 13:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template is easy to use and very useful. Allows for variations and is not mandatory. -- Alexf⁴² 15:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Template is very instrumental in precise understanding of historical dates. Those who are busy with deletion instead of going forward and create, are only preventing the development of Wikipedia. -- Shoteh (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With guidelines indicating that use of this template is not mandatory. People who find it easier to do longhand can and should; those who do not will have the shortcut. And those who insist on abusing this Template because of anal-retentiveness or editcountitis should be bitch-slapped by admins the same as those who abuse anything else. As for confusing the n00bs, they are confused regardless; we should no more dumb down all our processes to fit their limited abilities than we should limit our content to that which is fit for children. Advanced templates (such as the entire citation series) exist to assist advanced editors, whose responsibilities broadly include cleaning up after those with less experience. Thus, this does not, and should not, replace the existing functionality, but rather simplify the process of implementing it for those who know how to do so. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Intuitive, elegant, useful, instantly understandable. --Lockley (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is very useful and keeps the categories organized. Chantessy (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but force subst: of this template and stop users from adding this when all of these parameters are already present. gren グレン 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can't help feeling partially responsible for bringing this to light as I've added this template to a couple of hundred pages in the last few days. To the contrary of the claim that it complicates things, I think it simplifies them. It turns 3 lines into one, thus reducing clutter on a page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPCanada Navigation

This is an annoying little template with no real use, that's popping up everywhere weather you want it to or not. It's like a virus, and is unwanted. It's a waste of disk space. Delete — GreenJoe 13:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a helpful navigational template. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's used on less than 50 pages, so I don't understand what you mean that it's popping up everywhere. I also don't see how it's like a virus. Also, what disk space? Wikipedia is not printed on paper, and the servers aren't getting full. I honestly don't see what's so bad about the template. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not "popping up everywhere", and it's not a bad little gizmo. PKT (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason given for deletion. You can't just decide which project's templates are a "virus". Second point, Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What an odd deletion justification! I find it a useful navigation aide and it's better to keep it as a template than to have it individually placed on several WPCanada pages. Display can be suppressed by using CSS through noprint class, if it is that annoying for this user. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Perfectly fine nav template serving a useful purpose. This might be just speculation on my part, but the nom seems to have something personal against WP:CANADA. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] That in itself is not a bad thing, and the nom has every right to disagree with the actions being taken, but taking this to TFD because one person doesn't like the template and won't even discuss it isn't good. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The GO-PCHS-NJROTC Antivandal Barnstar

Apparently a school specific barnstar. Should be userfied. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 09:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I don't think it's school-specific, but rather user-specific (and the user is, in turn, named after a school). I really have no clue what its purpose is, though (I was awarded one, but I have no idea what it was for). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From his userpage, it's Port Charlotte High School's Naval Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize the name, but in its usage (see User talk:EVula#Thank you...), it has nothing to do with the school. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It ain't school specific, that's my username here (GO-PCHS-NJROTC). It's creation was inspired by the RickK Antivandal Barnstar, and the idea was the fact that at that time I had no idea who RickK was, and I assumed that was the creator of the award. I thought I'd rather give my own barnstar with my own username than someone else's, and that's where this award comes into play. Deletion? I don't think it's a good idea. Although I'd rather see it left as is, I think that it'd be better to redirect it to the RickK version than to delete it since deleting this kind of item may screw up some people's user and user talk pages, that is if consensus points to delete (and I'm hoping it doesn't). Did that settle any misunderstandings? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfication will suffice. No need to delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as a personal award used by its creator (see his comment above) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playstations

Not used. Not needed. The project says to use {{playstationp|Scaled=yes}}. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it's not used, isn't it significantly different from {{playstationp}}? {{Playstations}} seems to imply that the article is currently being edited, similar to {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}}. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{playstationp}} says the same thing: "...that they are working on it to..." The wording could always be changed if that is the only problem. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete it. The project doesn't use it anymore.--Playstationdude (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer used by the project + nothing that justifies marking it as historical. At most, subst it on the project page to show old banners --Enric Naval (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foreignchar

Even though it's pretty logical to have an canonicalized (transliterated) redirect to an title, there is no reason to point that out at all on the article in question (unless there direct reason to point it out, i.e. if an entity has official both types used).. _→AzaToth 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Too widely used. More discussion needed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Delete. Looking at previous discussions on this subject, it is suprising that no one (so far) responded to this nomination. However, I think it is time to delete this template. As someone said in a previous discussion: The use of {{foreignchar}} in a hatnote gives unwarranted prominence to a minor point. I believe that in most cases a comment on the use of "foreign" characters is not required. And in articles for which the transliteration of the name is not obvious, common transliterations could be listed in the article lead (as in the article on Rudolf Höß). --Kildor (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The template {{foreignchars}} should be considered for deletion as well. --Kildor (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Delete Case in point: Rügen. It current features this hatnote at the top, though it could just as easily put "(sometimes spelled Ruegen)" in the intro sentence. That would be a less intrusive, and far less wordy, way of displaying the same information. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is helpful when foreign characters are explained in standard form to those who are not familiar with them. See Voßstraße and Talk:Vossstrasse/Archive 1 to get an idea how ugly discussions can get. -- Matthead Discuß 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- very simple, extremely useful template that allows important but often forgotten categories to be easily added. If you would rather reorder the categories, add them manually and use defaultsort. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ... what categories? Alai (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Although a good concept, I think there are other ways of finding a solution to this problem. I, personally, think it makes the page ugly and don't find it helpful in the slightest. A simple redirect would suffice if you were looking/searching for the article, and I think most people know to remove the diacritic if they find it "undesirable". Jared Preston (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - alternate spellings can be added to the lead section, and redirects can be used to point other pages to the most commonly used spelling. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:50, May 25, 2008 (UTC)