Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
rvt. userbox vote would destroy TFD's normal operation
Line 4: Line 4:


===January 4===
===January 4===
==== A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions ====
* For convenience, I have listed the templates [[/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions]].
The purpose of these templates is to provide userboxes that an editor can apply to his user page, and in doing so he adds himself to a category according to his personal convictions or religious beliefs The dangers of this were starkly demonstrated late last month when, after the nomination for deletion of [[Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia]] the creator of that page used the userbox categories to locate over 40 Roman Catholics whose user talk pages he spammed in an attempt to subvert the consensual decision-making process of Wikipedia in order to keep a page that was avowedly intended "to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories."

We're getting into dangerous territory here, and this is a very recent thing. Of the 44 userboxes that I found listed on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs]] yesterday, only 3 had existed prior to December, and a very high proportion seem to have been created over the Christmas/New Year holiday. These userboxes must go because they turn Wikipedia into a network of people linked together by their factional interests,and as such are a grave danger to the neutrality policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and anything that threatens the neutrality policy must go --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep all'''. Unless people are suddenly coming here to visit user pages and not encyclopedia pages, I don't see the harm in these at all. The number of visitors seeing them must be so small as to be meaningless when taken as a whole of all of Wikipedia's traffic. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 05:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete all''', per Tony's reasoning. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession]]====
==== [[Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession]]====
{{ln|Template|Coin}}<br />
{{ln|Template|Coin}}<br />

Revision as of 05:18, 4 January 2006

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

January 4

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Coin

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Joe I 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Ingrid 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren グレン 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ditto. This place is supposed to encourage NPOV, no? MARussellPESE 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No value in building encyclopedia, potential for vote-stacking abuse. --- Charles Stewart 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User space should be a place where wikipedians can describe themselves as they see fit. This userbox can serve that purpose. It is not harmful, and given the recent conflagration over userboxes, I would prefer to leave the user space alone. This userbox could tell editors a great deal about the motivations of an editor, and certainly falls within the freedom of expression that the user space is intended for. --Dschor 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending a more compelte userbox policy. I belive that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. This user box is divisive (as are all userboxes indicating a user's disapproval for some other thing) and mainly exists for linkspamming (I'm sure its presence on Wikipedia increases the pagerank of the external site linked within it). It should be shot dead now. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, slash and burn external link - I've removed the external link and made it go to Operation Clambake instead - Scientology is a scary group of people: See Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person or Xenu articles. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Userboxes CAN be POV, that's what they are for, for user's to express opinions. That's why we have pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, Muslim, so on user boxes. It might be wise to tone it down a notch, but POV is not valid grounds to delete a user box. -- Jbamb 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My grounds was civil. It needlessly (and directly) annoys scientologists. Whereas if a pro-lifer dislikes someone because of a pro-choice userbox it's the pro-lifer being offended by the other's ideology passively. When you use this tag it actively offends needlessly. WP:CIVIL#Why_is_it_bad.3F describes why this is not appropriate pretty well... and, this basically amounts to an attack template. gren グレン 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. If you want to put it on your user page, write it yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: We should be allowed to say what we want on our user pages, including POV and even divicive things. It can be argued that scientology is a cult and we should be against it, but regardless, if someone is against it he/she should be able to say so, just as someone who is for it can say so.Maprov 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Infobox City NH

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuisine

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Template:Green Parties

Template:Green Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Smiley

It's Template:Sad (TFD discussion) all over again, with all its friends, all rolled up into one evil template via a {{switch}}. What's so terribly difficult about the image syntax that we need to use a two-level-deep template? They don't even need to be resized. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ac and Template:Ac-reason

Redundant with teh Wikipedia:General disclaimer plx. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:21, Jan. 2, 2006

  • delete as extremely POV. Joyous | Talk 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I've been monitoring the actions of User:Flarn2005 for some time now, and his actions have - in my opinion, of course - been nothing but disruption and censorship. A check of his blog, to which he links on his userpage, reveals that he is young - perhaps even a preteen - and attempts to reason with him, likely because of his extremely young age, have been met with difficulty. While I don't think that being young should exclude one from participating in wikipedia, I do think that his history counts against him. jglc | t | c 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #4, recreation of deleted content. Raul654 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time . In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism . That's just my opinion though . I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach (Smack Back) 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the "Support GWB" Template in response to this one. To be honest, it's not the hate that bothers me as much as the implicit endorsement of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the other template that jokes about "Reverting his edits to the Constitution" makes the same point, doesn't endorse vandalism, and (most important of all) is funnier. However, I'm not going to vote on this one, as the users of this userbox should make the final call. Palm_Dogg 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Statements like these are not really my style (though I don't support GWB either) but I also think banning them would be a totally unacceptable kind of censorship. Regardless of political colour, it's really a treasure when political leaders can be freely critized. Larix 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that censorship of any kind is totaly unnaceptable. But, on Wikipedia, our opinions on political or social issues almost never matter, and usually just serve to polarize us- I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a censorship issue.--Sean|Black 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep for both templates for GWB and against GWB. The truth is exactly the opposite sean - userboxes serve to build community and better community gets people to stay with the project and build a better encyclopedia. - I support all user boxes.--God_of War 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be an ideological debate over the relative merits of userboxes in general. This particular template is not even a statement of opinion: it's an ad hominem attack that is potentially in violation of our policy on personal attacks (that, of course, is up for debate since the subject isn't technically a Wikipedian, but I digress). And I say this as someone who does not have any particular love for the president or his policies. – Seancdaug 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with God of War in that userboxes help to build community, but I have to disagree with God of War inasmuch as this one has the potential to build only animosity. As for the argument that getting rid of the template is censorship, I would have to disagree—nobody's saying people can't say they hate GWB or hate removing vandalism from the GWB article. I don't care if people want to spew vitriol on their personal pages, but this template makes doing so a part of the WP namespace rather than a perceived protected right to expression. Additionally, the name User-GWB is an especially poor choice of name for this template. Tomertalk 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is silly. It's just a bit of fun - I only created it in response to hearing loads of people say it themselves. --Celestianpower háblame 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or BJAODN (if possible) It seems to be a confession of vandalism to me, or can be used that way. Some of us may hate the guy, but it doesn't give the right to vandalise his article; in short, there are no exceptions. I can understand the political side of the humour, but the faux (I assume that was the original intention) vandalism confession. --JB Adder | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism to GWB's biography and distaste for the president himself are two very notable aspects of Wikipedia and its members. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:47, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete. I don't like having to revert vandalism on his article, either, but to put it like the template does seems too much like implicit approval of vandalism. And yes, I see the humour — but it's not funny. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as fuddle said. --Doc ask? 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but change "hate" (an overly strong word) to "can't stand". Userboxes are only for User pages and user pages are free to be POV. By deleting this box it is effectively a denial of free speech, which goes against everything anyone stands for. WP:NPOV does not come into it because the userbox system is not for the encyclopedia. Deano (Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given - JVG 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As far as I am aware no Wikipedia policy forbids voicing opinions on userpages. Reword 'hate' to 'dislikes' or 'can't stand'. And there is certainly enough dislike to warent a template providing it does not phrase that he is wrong. Ian13ID:540053 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and f*ck Dubya! - Darwinek 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even though I can't vote yet, I'm a republican at heart, hence my vote. --ViolinGirl♪ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think this userbox makes it clear that the GWB article is carefully policed for vandalism, even by those who don't like him. Kafziel 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... - UK Bourbons3Talk | Contrib's 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach (Smack Back) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach (Smack Back) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated" UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach (Smack Back) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a lot of variations of it by now - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach (Smack Back) 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Everyone is allowed free speech. Even if this is an attack people need to have the right to speak out against administrators.--God of War 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NPA , divisive and uncalled for. 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I opposed User:Kelly Martin's actions in her pre-emptive deletion of Userboxes, but this is divisive and inflammatory in the current climate. As is the original prototype spoof "Userbox" which appears to have been created by User:El C supporting the "purge" (and derivatives thereof such as Template:User survived, now gone). A question to User:Sam Korn: will you also be removing all instances of El C's template, even when not transcluded, because that is equally inflammatory? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an attack, it is a creative way to provide a link to an RfC, where concerned wikipedians can voice their opinions on the matter. If this userbox is deleted, wikipedia has lost all perspective. --Dschor 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this reminds me an aweful lot of the time someone was going around signing his name [[communist|Howard Dean]], wasn't terribly funny then...--64.12.116.6 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - {{User purge}} was much better, but it was deleted and protected against recreation by Martin-supporting admins before even bringing it to TfD.
This is just an example, so people can see what it actually was:
File:Stalin3.jpg This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.
I was actually banned for even having this on my user page, so beware if you're under the misunderstanding that you actually have any right to free speech on your user page. -_- Template:Bigspace --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach (Smack Back) 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach (Smack Back) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as creator of both, can I authorize a speedy here? Not sure of the current rules for templates. {{MDmusic}} is preferred, and I am gradually switching all the states to use it. Hawaii is done, so this template can be safely deleted. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*-court

Template:Burger-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Chase-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ellsworth-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Fuller-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Hughes-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Jaycourt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Marshall-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rehnquist-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rutledge-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Stone-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taft-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taney-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Vinson-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Waite-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Warren-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:White-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Templates do not appear to be used any more. DLJessup (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This is a call to arms and totally lacks NPOV. Practically unused at present but ought not to be allowed, whatever one feels about the great Userbox debate of New Years' Eve. David | Talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark1 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consistency across the encyclopaedia is a good thing, but this is NOT the way to do it, and just bites the newbies. The language used in the latter two is not helpful at all and will scare off new editors and antagonise experienced editors. I agree wholeheartedly with Metaeducation - leave a note with a link to the relevant style guide. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mess2

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

  • The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
    • 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [1] is PD (Office of War Information).
    • 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
    • Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
  • Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading. The vast majority of works from the Library of Congress are not in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not even a reasonable assumption that a random image from the LOC is PD. An image's copyright status should be investigated before it's uploaded anyway. "Known good" images should be tagged properly as PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and alternative proposal. People thoughtlessly uploading images from the LOC website is a major source of unintentional copyright violation. Some images there are PD, but very many are copyrighted. The Library of Congress is rarely an original source of images, and images from their website should normally just be treated like any other images, and be attributed to their original source. There is one distinctive aspect of copyrights and the Library of Congress, though, that is important: they are rather good librarians, and so often document when the copyright on a post-1922 image has not been renewed. They have also sometimes made arrangements with photographers that have allowed their photographs to become public domain much sooner than otherwise would have happened. As the LOC can be a good source on the murky copyright status of post-1922 images, I propose the following template (Template:PD-US-LOC) instead for images it is appropriate for.--Pharos 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States Federal Government
This image was first published in the United States in 1923 or later, but is considered public domain by the Library of Congress because its copyright has not been renewed or has been formally released, or for another reason.

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach (Smack Back) 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach (Smack Back) 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Template:MLB Athletics franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Vw

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You cannot be blocked for violating guidelines. You may however be taken to an RFC or an RFAr over it. The probable effect for enforcing a guideline is by consensus reversion; then the 3RR would serve its purpose and not this template. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nom and because violating the MoS is not vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

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

The template
‹ Templates for discussion ›
has been
proposed for deletion

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everything above. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw it in half, no wait that would create 2 templates... Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:50, Jan. 2, 2006

Template:Off-topic

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

Template:ROT13

Template:ROT13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Uncategorized

Redundant with, and less practical than, Special:Uncategorizedpages. In addition, using this template breaks the more often used Special:Uncat, because it puts the articles in the oxymoronic Category:Category needed. Delete. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 2

Not used. Replacement: template:web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: It's really not used. At the present situation the compatible template:web reference can be used without breaking articles if somebody finds a leftover call of web reference 2 (I think I got them all converted to web reference). To Neto: you can act on template:web reference then at one strike. Or do you want to convert an old fork of web reference, too? Adrian Buehlmann 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 4

Was an unused redirect to Template:Web reference 2 which I intend to nominate later too (needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University5

Template:Infobox University5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used. In fact all of Infobox University4-6 are used very sparingly and could probably be fixed not to be used at all. --platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web-reference

Was a redirect to Template:Web reference. Deprecated and defunct. Adrian Buehlmann 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: the original creator wrote in the edit summary of the first revision "'ve mistyped this one too many times. Making the redirect, so I won't have to do it again.". Maintaining templates is already quite a hard job. Adding redirects for typos of heavy use templates is just a bad idea. Adrian Buehlmann 10:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete license

Redundant with Template:No license. --Puzzlet Chung 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuberculosis

Not really a candidate for an article series, given that the top two in this list will be merged. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European communist parties

Template:European communist parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template does not show how all these parties are banded together (in the same organization, etc.) or closely related. and the images take too long to load.--Jiang 08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Jiang 08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template lists the major referent of the World Communist Movement in each country. --Soman 09:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For Soman's reasons. The images can, possibly, be made smaller, but the template is good. Afonso Silva 10:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, the template should at least be changed to reflect that these are the members of the World Communis Movement, and not "Communist parties", of which there are quite a few more than the ones listed. For example, if you talk about "the communist party" in Sweden, SKP are not the ones you're most likely to think of... —Gabbe 16:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if edited to make it more clear which "Communist" parties are being considered for inclusion. Practically every country in the world has multiple parties which claim to be communist. Some of these are Leninist, some Maoist, some Stalinist, some Trotskyist, and so on. Also, I'm not too thrilled about the images; can't we just have a simple list? —Psychonaut 17:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like the images. It is not an unimportant matter, as the choice of symbolism also denotes political differences. Compare KPÖ/PCF with KKE, for example. Or note that some parties include national colours and other don't. BTW, aren't all communist parties Leninist by definition? --Soman 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: templates take up a lot of space on articles, and there's already either a politics or a "political parties in" template for most countries. When do we stop? That said, I think it's essentially a useful template. Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Jiang. There is no criterion for excluding the countless minor parties that are even considered fringe groups by even the members of the larger Communist parties, such as the anti-revisionsist Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, etc. Soman's comment is well taken; but note that the template name is "European communist parties," as opposed to a title that specifies that we are dealing with the historically Soviet-aligned parties (i.e. the ones listed in the template at the moment). 172 11:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Psychonaut - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality law

Template:Nationality law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Redundant with Wikipedia:legal disclaimer. It is established community policy not to use additional disclaimers in articles. Jiang 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Delete per nom DaGizza Chat 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ai kago-5

Template:User ai kago-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Master race? Hello? A userbox announcing to the world one's intention to create a master race? Is this Wikipedia or Fuehrerpedia? We don't need this crap here. Contributes nothing to Wikipedia, and it offends people. Like me. On second thought, maybe delete everything in the series except one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Todo, trains

We already have a Template:Todo and I don't see the value of having a slightly modified fork for a specific WikiProject. Suggest migrate to Template:Todo and delete. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Added note: The only apparent reason for this to be a fork of Template:Todo is to add Cat:To do, trains. I think this sets a poor precedent. -- Netoholic @ 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIP

Template:WIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template poorly duplicates a couple we already have, as well as utomatically feeding any article its marked with into the general stubs category (to give an example of why this is a bad thing, it's currently in use on only one article, and that is clearly not a stub). Unnecessary. 210.54.198.105 01:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (um, that's Grutness...wha?. Damn computer logged me out).[reply]

Template:NRL Grounds

Template:NRL Grounds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, only a couple of categories no other content. MeltBanana 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A template dependent upon Freenet/Ways to view a freesite (AFD discussion). Doesn't seem at all useful without it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a large number of pages (like more than ten) use this template then obviously there is a need for it and it shouldn't be deleted. If there is enough need to warrant keeping it, then I think the original article should be moved to a more appropriate space, as the AfD debate can be summed up as "I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something?"
I forget how to check template usage, but obviously if this template is deleted we lose some external links which will need to be removed or otherwise fixed. --TexasDex 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Template:Atlanta conventions

Unused nav template. All links in the template are red. - TexasAndroid 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security Risk

This template reads "this article poses a risk to international security and should be edited." If one of our articles actually poses a risk to international security it needs far more than a template, and any such issues should be brought directly to the board. However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern. - SimonP 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See British Embassy in Washington, D.C. and its talk page for an example of this template in action. - SimonP 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is akin to those who publish other peoples' personal information on Wikipedia and is just as bad. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, a person's information is private and even if it weren't it would be hard for it to be verifiable, an information on an embassy or other government building on the other hand is verifiable and publicly available and therefore eligible for inclusion. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per my argument above and the fact that these so called claims to national security are just straw man arguments. Information about embassies and other governmenmt agencies is publicly available and verifiable so it's eligible for inclusion and therefore having an article to tell people to remove it is flawed. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since terrorists would much rather attack world leaders, can I trust that the addresses for the residences of the leaders of the US and UK will be purged from Wikipedia? --Golbez 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAgain: Wikipedia IS NOT an addressbook and has no mechanism to trace those individuals looking for the address information of diplomatic missions. Other websites have this ability. Since the only medium we can compare this issue is to the Internet, it is important that we remain vigilant in the war on terrorism and the ability to track those that would cause harm to others. The strong will and desire of others to continue to delete these security templates is itself a matter of concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZed (talk • contribs) 19:55, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Bullshit, A) it's impossible for us to know who's viewing this information and it's not our job to police information, we are a free encyclopedia that consists of verifiable and factual information, what you want is censorship due to a percieved threat which is baseless. WP:NOT should be expanded to state that Wikipedia is not censored at the behest of people who have irrational national security fears. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Hopefully, the debacle that has unfolded here demonstrates to Wikipedia editors, adminstrators and arbitrators the need to KEEP important templates such as these. Rather than deal with the case in a fair and polite manner, this IP was banned from WIKI to prevent further comment. Irregardless of the fact that the 3 Revert Rule was not adequately and fairly re-inforced when it came to the original vandalizer User:SimonP, and irregardless of the fact that two seperate admins banned my IP twice within a minute for the same infraction (how is that even possible?) When real security matters arise here on WP, what are the mechanisms Jimbo Wales et al have implemented to ensure that there is a secure method to report users to police/security/proper authorities when material of a sensitive nature continues to be posted? I hope none of the long-time admins here who have ignored this issue would suggest that this template does not have a place here on Wikipedia. PeterZed 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors, administrators and arbitrators are all watching you make a fool out of yourself. The addresses and locations of foreign embassies are as sensitive and vital to national security as my shoe size. FCYTravis 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Let's see... Editors of the Animal Liberation Front use the term target to describe current operations here on Wikipedia. How is this not a candidate to be tagged as an international security risk when they are possibly identifying post-secondary institutions as potential locations for terrorist activity? yet Wikipedians suggest that there is noneed for a security template? PeterZed 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that Peter Zed has been a little too zealous and failed to actually read the article. It lists universities that have been attacked in the past by groups claiming to be the Animal Liberation Front. By the same logic, you may as well add that template to the Al Qaeda article if it mentions the US embassy in Nigeria or the Twin Towers.--BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- **I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he is, politely, saying that the template is bound for the bit bucket, whatever tortured reading you give to that post. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lolling pin! - FrancisTyers 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see this has been deleted already, but wouldn't having a convient tag marking all of the good stuff have made it easier on the bad guys? I mean, why go searching for stuff when you can just go straight to everything marked Security Risk.
  • COMMENT

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

  • Is that a legal threat I smell? We have nothing more to clarify to you, you are the one who is being deliberately vague and mysterious. --Golbez 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT There is nothing vague and mysterious about the clear security risk that posting photographs and addresses of diplomatic missions on this website poses. Supporters of known terrorist groups are permitted to freely edit, distribute and create materials here. The template itself was deleted before due process granted. I am suggesting that traffic emanating from and directed to this website be blocked from the servers of certain legal jurisdictions in order to prevent the further spread of misinformation as well as tools that may allow terrorists to create havoc.PeterZed 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You have yet to explain why it's a security risk to have the British Embassy's address on Wikipedia, when it's plainly visible on their webpage. Since you have not even bothered to answer this, which has been asked multiple times, I am forced to disregard you as a minor, but persistent, troll, someone who has absolutely no desire to assist international security and is just poking and prodding us for what I must assume to be your own amusement. --Golbez 23:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only think that letting this TFD finish would do is lower the percentage of votes in favor of it. Unless you got some of your "security proffesional" colleagues to come and vote. --Chris 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

Template creates a false assertion of copyright status, the Biographical Directory of the United States copyright details clearly state that not all images on the site are in the public domain, template needs to be explicitly rewritten or deleted and images taken from the site tagged within the existing tagging structure.--nixie 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite. - 99% of Biographical Directory of Congress images are PD. "copyright information is provided whenever possible". This states all US Federal Government sites such as Library of Congress or NARA. So, if you want to delete it, nominate also other US-Gov templates. - Darwinek 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rewrite. as Darwinek above - we seem to be delete crazy all of a sudden - this is a prefectly good template. The direct objection should be addressed which is the wording of the template - not the template itself. Kevinalewis 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per everyone else. A perfectly good template with just one problem -- a problem that only needs boldness to accomplish. Basically, word it something like:
United States Federal Government
This portrait or photograph of a U.S. Congress member was provided by the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. According to the copyright page, the image is under the public domain unless other copyright information is given.

Template:Language/Malayalam

See below - identical template.

Template:MalayalamScript

Performs the exact same function as the existing {{IndicText}}. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks?? The Malayalam template was presumably created after being vetted by the usual long process, now somebody summarily empties the category without so much as a by-your-leave?? I am speechless. ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I hope this is sarcasm. What vetting process do you speak of? This template was used on at most four pages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Best practice, and best intention is served by keeping the categorgy intact durign this process. wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I previously said really unclear? Template creation requires a long vetting process. So does deletion. When the process is defined, and debate here is ongoing, why did you (Sukh) take it upon yourself to empty the category? ImpuMozhi 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being blind, but I certainly don't see the 'long vetting process' that this template went into. And I merely changed the existing four uses of the template BACK to the original Indic template. It is a wiki after all... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having that warning in Devnagiri script will not serve the purpose. The 'Kerala' written in the page is in Malayalam script, which is no where close to the Devnagiri script. The people who can read 'Kerala' written in Malayalam script(and if that person doesn't know devnagiri script) will readily go and modyfying it(assuming his/her browser is not indic script compliant). Even with that warning some people try to correct it. I hope i have made my point clear.--Raghu 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in the current template is not in Devanagari, it is in Gurmukhi and it isn't meant to show every single possible Indic script (there could very well be hundreds of Brahmi descended scripts that the Indic text template is useful for). It's merely a VERY SIMPLE representative example and does not indicate that the script on the page must be Gurmukhi. What should we do for pages that contain, Malayalam, Devanagari and Gurmukhi? List three identical templates with different pictures!? How about pages that might list even more Indian languages and scripts?
The template talks about the technology to enable support for Indic scripts in general which applies just as much to Malayalam as it does to Gurmukhi, Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil etc. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the same principle to apply to all Indic scripts (which is only fair of course), we'd need at least 23 to account for all the ones currently encoded in Unicode. This does not include scripts YET to be encoded in Unicode. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My Answers
  • The difference between scripts of Devanagari and Gurumukhi is minor. Even i was able to understand Gurumukhi with a knowledge of Devanagari only.
  • Your point that it will necessitate 100's of template is not correct beacause all North Indian languages scripts are similar and most people who speak other north Indian languages like Punjabi, Gujarathi, Marathi and Bengali have a good knowlege of Hindi (and consequently Devanagari or the very similar gurumukhi script). So we are left with four South Indian langauges. Telugu and Kannada script are mutually intelligible. Tamil and Malayalam are pretty close but if needed we can have separate one for Tamil. so totally we need 4 templates.
  • If a page has more than one indic script? There are few pages like that. In case it is there use the generic Gurumukhi Template as more people will understand that.
  • If there exists a template which does the needed function in a better way. Why delete?
Regards--Raghu 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - The scripts are similar yes, but there is no way you would be able to decipher Gurmukhi characters when you know just Devanagari. Some characters are deceptively similar (e.g. Devanagari प /pa/ looks like Gurmukhi ਧ /dha/) while I do admit, some are similar in appearance. Also Gurmukhi has a special nasal sign called Tippi, it uses Adhak for geminates and it does not employ half forms. Gurmukhi departs in greater ways from Devanagari (from which it didn't descend) than some South Indian scripts do.
Point 2 - The picture is merely representative of the rendering technology (I picked it because it was the most simple representation of complex rendering). You can consider it to be a bit of a 'logo' and it could be replaced with a star, an asterisk or anything else to grab attention. You also fail to realise that Brahmic (Indic) scripts are not just the preserve of India, and Mongolian, Lao, Tibetan, Thai and others are visually very distinct and don't correspond to similarities in North/South Indian scripts. So how do you propose adding templates for these? Indeed what about many older scripts that come under the umbrella of complex text rendering?
Point 3 - But then what to do about all the people who in your opinion won't recognise it because it's in Gurmukhi? Surely the same problem occurs. Multiple Indic scripts are used on many pages already on Wikipedia, and this will only increase as time goes by.
Point 4 - This isn't in my opinion any better than the existing template. Indeed, the only reason I think it was made was because someone saw the Gurmukhi (or, Devanagari-esque) characters and deduced it may be some latent means of promoting North Indian scripts or languages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - You are missing the point. The alphabet shown in the image on the template 'Vi' to explain the concept is similar (I was able to decipher)to the one in Devanagari. Leave alone the rest of the difference you say there exist between the two.
Point 2 - I agree with you. It would need hard labour to do that in all Languages. If somebody is going to do that for some other languages, it would be really useful.
Point 3 - The 'many' pages you are talking about will be less than 2% of all pages containing indic texts. I already told what can be done about those pages.
Point 4 - that seems to be your POV. I can't help with that.
Regards --Raghu 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Gurmukhi one actually says 'ki' not 'vi'! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions are not the only thing provided my that. It also warns the innocent newbie users to not go ahead and try editing to make it look correct (this warning is provided inside the edit section as a comment but has proved to be not good enough, check the Chennai page to see how many corrections have taken place in the lst 200 edits or so. Atleast 5-6). This warning will be best when it is given in the native script of each language. The alphabet should also be chosen carefully like 'ka' for Kerala. 'Ma' for Tamil Nadu etc. It would simply be great if User:Sukh could design a template that would take an alphabet as the input and display it!!--Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the image with something neutral. The template could also be changed to take the language of the page and display it, in place of IndicText. See {{user wikipedia}} for an example. --Pamri • Talk 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a separate malayalam template doesn't hurt anyone, and to assume that Devanagari alone is the best symbol of Indic scripts is essentially Aryanocentric. --Soman 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to do with Devanagari on the entire IndicText template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I mistook it for a Devanagari 'vi'. Anyways, it hardly doesn't make my argument less valid. Why should Gurkmukhi get to represent all Indic scripts? Isn't that one of the latest inventions, out of which none of the other major scripts have emerged? --Soman 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't that one of the latest inventions" - more of a gradual evolution, but yes, maybe that is the reason? :D No, but seriously, we could replace it with a star, or something that doesn't show a particular script if that is the only reason people don't want to use this template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could even be replaced with an image of a Brahmi character. That is, after all, the mother script ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't give a damn. Guys, you are arguing about a warning template that will hopefully be obsolete in half a year, or whenever MS decides to fix their browser. Maybe we should delete both templates, and leave it to people to figure out their own browser instead of plastering templates about browser issues all over Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first point at which Microsoft will automatically enable complex text support is in Vista - so you're looking at at least six years before we see the trickle down effect. Indeed, in some of the pages that the template is listed, it not only ruins the flow of the page, but is obtrusive (this can be fixed on a page-by-page basis by repositioning it and other boxes). Indeed, I hope to prevent the proliferation of lots of different script boxes that will become harder to maintain and will have no advantage over the current template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where exactly is the problem. I have WinXP with service Pack 1 and 2. My IE shows the indic scripts properly!!! My problem is with the Firefox browser. --Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well for starters, Malayalam was only added on SP2. The reason IE works and Firefox doesn't is because IE calls the international text API (Uniscribe) directly whereas Firefox doesn't. You need to physically enable complex text support on your computer for it to work. See the link on the IndicText template for full instructions for ALL Indian scripts: Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, a suggestion: two syllables are featured on the "Indic" template; need they both be Gurmukhi? Perhaps if one were Malayalam, it would serve to mollify all concerned. The choice of these two scripts as representative would also be "nice" in the sense that both of them are, to coin a word, "non-rampant" in India and do not elicit strong emotions (script-evolution theories, 'aryanocentrism', all find mention in the day-long discussion above). ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two pictures indicate what complex rendering does. In that example, it's repositioning vowel sign i. So it shows a 'before complex text rendering' and an 'after complex text rendering' image. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 6

Possibly unused redirect (I do not know how to check that for shure, due to the possibly incomplete "what links here" list) to Template:Web reference 3, which is barely used either (I intend to nominated that later too, needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dichotomouskey

Redundant with the very flexible Template:Wikibookspar. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UNSecGen

Too specific. There are only seven of them, and I've moved them to use the more generic Template:Infobox Person. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer UN Secretary-General

Compelety unused. The infobox provides predecessor/sucessor links. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saskatchewan

Template:Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Album infobox 2

  • Review so what happened to this whilst most of us were not watching over the holidays, there was no clear concensus so how was this to be a remove authority. There were issues with the clicking on the image but they had been solved. I cannot believe that such creativity should be stamped upon also I don't believe if we are able to use an image we fall foul if we are an image in such an innocuous way. Most of all what is the point of these votes is they are ridden roughshod over! Kevinalewis 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold the action taken, for the reasons cited for the action: fork templates are discouraged and we should be mindful of fair use.—jiy (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The action taken is against consensus (in fact, there was no consensus, it ended 21 to 20 in favor of deleting, and that was counting one vote that was unsigned). Regardless, I've suggested to Kevinalewis that he discuss this at WP:DRV. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that more than vote count was taken into consideration when interpretating the consensus of this TfD. Many of the support votes did not provide rationales for keeping the template, or at least refer to a substantiative rationale they agree with, and so their contributions to the discussion are given less weight. On the other hand, most of the delete votes made it clear that fork templates are bad, and that the template probably violates fair use. The strongest recurring argument on the keep side seems to be that the images might qualify under fair use. Yet in these cases where there is a division in opinion on legal matters, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.—jiy (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Jiy says. The two main arguments for deletion are 1) it being a fork (people should edit templates they disagree with rather than creating new versions) and 2) the legal consideration of fair use. Radiant_>|< 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

Template:Battlebox no campaign

Delete: No longer used, deprecated by Template:Infobox Military Conflict. —Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:the pillows

Delete: I see no reason for this template to be used, especially since:

  1. None of the members (former members included) have articles written about them; and
  2. None of the members (again former members included) really have done anything outside of the group. JB Adder | Talk 05:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. WikiFanatic 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What exactly is wrong with this template? It contains their discography and is used as a quick navigation page between pages on their albums. Makes sense to me. Please answer me this: if this template is deleted, what navigational tool would you replace it with on their album pages? As for the band members being on there, I've taken care of that. --Cyde Weys votetalk 14:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack on population center

Delete: It is a redundant template - the only two articles that used it now use the Template:Infobox Military Conflict. Loopy 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing preventing you from adding civilian casualties to {{Infobox Military Conflict}}; see Battle of Stalingrad, for example. —Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I speak for vast majority of the world's civilians when I say that the most important thing about any military conflict is whether civilians were vicitims of it. Therefore it is just and proper that the template heading display that information. Plus, Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict provides much less detailed information. I can't believe that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is being suggested as a serious alternative to Template:Attack on population center --James S. 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into philosophical issues here, I still don't see how the older template is better; it has the exact same casualties fields as the new one. —Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between the two templates is the design. Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is a flexible infobox that can be used to represent anything from a war, to a battle, to a mass slaughter of military or civilians, to any kind of conflict you would like to put in. I'm not really sure how you can argue that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is much less detailed than Template:Attack on population center when, as Kirill Lokshin pointed out above, they're precisely the same... --Loopy 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

Template:US City infobox

Delete. Unused redirect to template:Infobox U.S. City. Adrian Buehlmann 20:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to change my vote to keep per Netoholic's prove below. So this nomination is in fact cancelled (But it's interesting for technical reasons). Adrian Buehlmann 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's a redirect that is useful. There's also no way to know if any articles still use that. A page may call "US City infobox" but the Whatlinkshere will show a link to the target of the redirect, not the redirect itself. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a technical question: I thought the "What links here" clicked on the redirect page (the one that contains the #redirect instruction) lists all articles that refer to the redirect. Am I wrong? Adrian Buehlmann 09:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No you are not wrong. [2] I'm not clear why Netoholic said what he did; the redirect is plainly not used anywhere, merely referenced in discussions and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Pick some random articles from the Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox U.S. City. Now, you'd think that those would all call that template directly, but you're wrong. I picked Portland, Maine and as of this note, it is using "{{Template:US City infobox|". The link skips the redirect and refers to the redirects target instead (not listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:US City infobox. It may be a bug or a feature, but redirects have been working like this for at least a couple weeks. -- Netoholic @ 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's annoying. I was puzzled as to why there was anything listed at all in Whatlinkshere, but it seems that only wikilinks to the template are listed, not actual template calls. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I could reproduce that. Thanks for the example. I thought I had found all instances of articles that still use the redirect "US City infobox" (old name of the template) but I didn't due to the incomplete "what links here list" on the redirect. I think that's a bug, but maybe I just cannot see for what this behaviour should be good. Well, however changing my vote to Keep. Adrian Buehlmann 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Netoholic is correct here, and this is a deceptive bug/feature. I noted that performing a null edit on Portland, Maine did not correctly update the Whatlinkshere list either. This is frightening in light of the recent movement to delete stub template redirects, as the effects of such deletions (i.e., a red link at the bottom of pages previously flagged as stubs) would go unnoticed for a greater period of time. For related discussion, see [3] — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:27, Dec. 27, 2005
    • actually, not at all - we've been working with the problem at SFD for some time. Didn't realise no-one here knew about it. As far as stubs are concerned, since all stub templates have dedicated categories, it's simply a case of a manual or bot-assisted check of all articles within the category. With templates that have no dedicated categories, though, it could be a fairly major problem. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      For what its worth, this was listed at VPP several weeks back. It was reported after first being noted on WP:SFD in early November (see Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Template redirects). Not sure whether anyone filed a bug report, and unfortunately the Village pump isn't archived that I know of and I can't recall what the outcome of the discussions there was - but it is a known bug. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk1

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk2

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pulmed Basilisk

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mos4

  • Delete as per nom. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. violet/riga (t) 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-word to align with Mos3, and re-word to make intention clearer, and note that this template applies only to changes that do nothing except deliberately deviate from MoS. Any edit that adds content does not count. Neonumbers 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- after all, the MoS itself contradicts this template in the first paragraph. Neonumbers has a point, though...--SarekOfVulcan 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't block good editors over style issues. Firebug 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, or Fix and Rename. "Those rules are mandatory" it says, in direct contradiction to the MoS itself (see Template:Mosblock discussion above). If it said "Those guidelines are optional, but should only be altered for good reason, with consensus. Edits deliberately against consensus may be considered vandalism, and result in you being blocked." then I might support keeping it under the name Mos2, so long as it was never used as a substitute for discussion, and never used in contradiction to WP:AGF. There is absolutely no need for Mos3 or Mos4, just use the vandalism templates. Aumakua 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl The arbitration ruling makes sense if one takes principle 2.2 to mean that the contents of the MoS are changeable and not set in stone. Kelly Martin is correct in alluding to the instances in which MoS guidelines are contradictory and thus may have to be ignored and/or modified with good reason. Her comments are well-reasoned as usual. However, principle 2.2 does not negate the possibility of violations of the MoS guidelines that do reach the level of vandalism. For example, if an editor goes against consensus on a universally accepted principle of the MoS in order to push a POV or to harass other editors, it is clear vandalism, and the user should be blocked. 172 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template is blatantly incorrect, and would not be necessary if 'twere correct. This is legalism gone mad. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Along with its bretheren, contradicts the MoS. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UT-Austin

Delete: This template is redundant; one serving the same purpose already exists at Template:User_longhorn. -Rebelguys2 09:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. -Scm83x 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created in error, unaware of existing template. Mea Culpa.1001001 10:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gigem Aggies! I mean uhm, yeah ...its a duplicate, thats it! --Naha|(talk) 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Template:Infobox Proprietary Software

Delete: Obsolete by {{Infobox Software}}. - David Björklund (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flensburg infobox

Delete unused and redundant with {{Infobox Town DE}} --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Equatorial Guinea infobox

Delete: This template seems to be a copy of the infobox in article Equatorial Guinea and is apparently not used anywhere. Thuresson 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PureStates

Delete: "Pure" states? Anyway, not used. dbenbenn | talk 03:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Feminist

Sexist anti-female propaganda by User:D-Day:

User:D-Day decided this, {{User Feminist}}, would be a good addition to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. The symbol for feminism, as picked by D-Day is "I h8 men" with a link to Feminism.

Somehow, I don't agree: This is nothing but sexist propaganda by D-Day (who I've not talked to before, I just noticed this template addition as the Userboxes project pages are all on my watchlist), designed to convey falsehoods like "all feminists hate men"/"feminists are lesbians", etc --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes: *Delete --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

  • Keep' My apologies if this was offensive. It was created in an attempt to be a lighter tone and I did not mean to offend anyone, nor set any kind of prejudice. I'll change it to try to make it less offensive. --D-Day 17:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

Template:Infobox BridgeSpecificWithMap

Duplicates main Template:Infobox Bridge now that support for the map was made optional. Was only used on four articles, so I moved them to Infobox Bridge. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Police Officer

Seems a tad too specific. Only used on two articles, which are themselves up for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 09:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Early Muslim conflicts

Listing for Zora. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands this template really gets in the way. If it's kept, which I think right now is a bad idea, it should be made much smaller and so it is put at the bottom of articles. We have battle boxes which are supposed to go where Striver has put it. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • i also agree that it should be deleted. at the very least, someone needs to edit it, as it has numerous grammar and spelling errors (why are there no apostrophes?!). but moreover, i'm just not sure how the template really adds anything. Dgl 11:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really know much about the topic, but if it makes sense to group them together, I don't see why not have it. Further, the complaint about the apostrophes is trivial, I have just fixed that. –Andyluciano 19:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "them" that are being grouped are highly heterogeneous. They aren't all "conflicts", for one thing. The Hijra was not a conflict. Succession to Muhammad was a political struggle, but not a battle. Treaties aren't conflicts! The timeline is also undefined. After complaining to the creator of the template, who is a Shi'a Muslim, that ending the template with the Battle of Karbala was POV, he added one other revolt. But why stop there? Why not everything that happened during the Umayyad caliphate? Also, even with the punctuation problems fixed, there are still red links, mispellings, etc. We have one editor weighing in here, Dgl, who has a master's degree in Islamic studies. He wrote the article on the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. If he thinks this template is useless, it's useless. We already have extensive interlinking between Islamic history articles, plus an article on Islamic history, plus a timeline of Islamic history. That's enough to orient readers. Zora 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If all that is needed is a chronological list of battles, the proper way to do it is via a campaignbox template. —Kirill Lokshin 21:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zora. Pepsidrinka 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use the campaignbox, Luke. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Warbox or Campaignbox can replace it. Roy Al Blue 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


December 21

Userfy

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User Template:User:shreshth91/welcome-2 Template:User:shreshth91/welcome Template:User:APclark/Babel Template:User:Alex Nisnevich/sidebar Template:User:Alex Nisnevich/sig Template:User:Autoit script Template:User:Carnildo/Nospam Template:User:Cool Cat/Imposter Template:User:DaGizza/Sg Template:User:DaGizza/Welcome for Cricket Template:User:DaGizza/Welcome for Rugby Template:User:Encyclopedist/Usercomment Template:User:Encyclopedist/Welcome! Template:User:Gator1/dbtemplate Template:User:Ianbrown/Templates/away Template:User:SWD316/sidebar Template:User:Shreshth91/welcome Template:User:SimonMayer/Nav Box Template:User:Super-Magician/Main Template:User:Super-Magician/Sandbox Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature/Time Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature nosign Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/AST Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/CDT Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/CST Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/EDT Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/EST Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatusNone Template:User:Super-Magician/Wikistress3D/Left Template:User:Super-Magician/Wikistress3D/Right Template:User:TShilo12/Welcome Template:User:V.Molotov/Welcome! Template:User:cacumer/linkbox Template:User/Manjith Template:User-alfakim-signature

Holding cell

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


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

Tools

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

  • None currently

Other

  • See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

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

To substitute

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

To orphan

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

Ready for deletion

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

  • None currently

Listings

January 4

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Coin

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Joe I 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Delete Ingrid 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren グレン 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ditto. This place is supposed to encourage NPOV, no? MARussellPESE 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No value in building encyclopedia, potential for vote-stacking abuse. --- Charles Stewart 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User space should be a place where wikipedians can describe themselves as they see fit. This userbox can serve that purpose. It is not harmful, and given the recent conflagration over userboxes, I would prefer to leave the user space alone. This userbox could tell editors a great deal about the motivations of an editor, and certainly falls within the freedom of expression that the user space is intended for. --Dschor 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending a more compelte userbox policy. I belive that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. This user box is divisive (as are all userboxes indicating a user's disapproval for some other thing) and mainly exists for linkspamming (I'm sure its presence on Wikipedia increases the pagerank of the external site linked within it). It should be shot dead now. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, slash and burn external link - I've removed the external link and made it go to Operation Clambake instead - Scientology is a scary group of people: See Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person or Xenu articles. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Userboxes CAN be POV, that's what they are for, for user's to express opinions. That's why we have pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, Muslim, so on user boxes. It might be wise to tone it down a notch, but POV is not valid grounds to delete a user box. -- Jbamb 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My grounds was civil. It needlessly (and directly) annoys scientologists. Whereas if a pro-lifer dislikes someone because of a pro-choice userbox it's the pro-lifer being offended by the other's ideology passively. When you use this tag it actively offends needlessly. WP:CIVIL#Why_is_it_bad.3F describes why this is not appropriate pretty well... and, this basically amounts to an attack template. gren グレン 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. If you want to put it on your user page, write it yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: We should be allowed to say what we want on our user pages, including POV and even divicive things. It can be argued that scientology is a cult and we should be against it, but regardless, if someone is against it he/she should be able to say so, just as someone who is for it can say so.Maprov 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Infobox City NH

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuisine

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Template:Green Parties

Template:Green Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Smiley

It's Template:Sad (TFD discussion) all over again, with all its friends, all rolled up into one evil template via a {{switch}}. What's so terribly difficult about the image syntax that we need to use a two-level-deep template? They don't even need to be resized. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ac and Template:Ac-reason

Redundant with teh Wikipedia:General disclaimer plx. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:21, Jan. 2, 2006

  • delete as extremely POV. Joyous | Talk 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I've been monitoring the actions of User:Flarn2005 for some time now, and his actions have - in my opinion, of course - been nothing but disruption and censorship. A check of his blog, to which he links on his userpage, reveals that he is young - perhaps even a preteen - and attempts to reason with him, likely because of his extremely young age, have been met with difficulty. While I don't think that being young should exclude one from participating in wikipedia, I do think that his history counts against him. jglc | t | c 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #4, recreation of deleted content. Raul654 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time . In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism . That's just my opinion though . I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach (Smack Back) 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the "Support GWB" Template in response to this one. To be honest, it's not the hate that bothers me as much as the implicit endorsement of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the other template that jokes about "Reverting his edits to the Constitution" makes the same point, doesn't endorse vandalism, and (most important of all) is funnier. However, I'm not going to vote on this one, as the users of this userbox should make the final call. Palm_Dogg 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Statements like these are not really my style (though I don't support GWB either) but I also think banning them would be a totally unacceptable kind of censorship. Regardless of political colour, it's really a treasure when political leaders can be freely critized. Larix 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that censorship of any kind is totaly unnaceptable. But, on Wikipedia, our opinions on political or social issues almost never matter, and usually just serve to polarize us- I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a censorship issue.--Sean|Black 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep for both templates for GWB and against GWB. The truth is exactly the opposite sean - userboxes serve to build community and better community gets people to stay with the project and build a better encyclopedia. - I support all user boxes.--God_of War 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be an ideological debate over the relative merits of userboxes in general. This particular template is not even a statement of opinion: it's an ad hominem attack that is potentially in violation of our policy on personal attacks (that, of course, is up for debate since the subject isn't technically a Wikipedian, but I digress). And I say this as someone who does not have any particular love for the president or his policies. – Seancdaug 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with God of War in that userboxes help to build community, but I have to disagree with God of War inasmuch as this one has the potential to build only animosity. As for the argument that getting rid of the template is censorship, I would have to disagree—nobody's saying people can't say they hate GWB or hate removing vandalism from the GWB article. I don't care if people want to spew vitriol on their personal pages, but this template makes doing so a part of the WP namespace rather than a perceived protected right to expression. Additionally, the name User-GWB is an especially poor choice of name for this template. Tomertalk 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is silly. It's just a bit of fun - I only created it in response to hearing loads of people say it themselves. --Celestianpower háblame 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or BJAODN (if possible) It seems to be a confession of vandalism to me, or can be used that way. Some of us may hate the guy, but it doesn't give the right to vandalise his article; in short, there are no exceptions. I can understand the political side of the humour, but the faux (I assume that was the original intention) vandalism confession. --JB Adder | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism to GWB's biography and distaste for the president himself are two very notable aspects of Wikipedia and its members. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:47, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete. I don't like having to revert vandalism on his article, either, but to put it like the template does seems too much like implicit approval of vandalism. And yes, I see the humour — but it's not funny. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as fuddle said. --Doc ask? 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but change "hate" (an overly strong word) to "can't stand". Userboxes are only for User pages and user pages are free to be POV. By deleting this box it is effectively a denial of free speech, which goes against everything anyone stands for. WP:NPOV does not come into it because the userbox system is not for the encyclopedia. Deano (Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given - JVG 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As far as I am aware no Wikipedia policy forbids voicing opinions on userpages. Reword 'hate' to 'dislikes' or 'can't stand'. And there is certainly enough dislike to warent a template providing it does not phrase that he is wrong. Ian13ID:540053 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and f*ck Dubya! - Darwinek 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even though I can't vote yet, I'm a republican at heart, hence my vote. --ViolinGirl♪ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think this userbox makes it clear that the GWB article is carefully policed for vandalism, even by those who don't like him. Kafziel 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... - UK Bourbons3Talk | Contrib's 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach (Smack Back) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach (Smack Back) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated" UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach (Smack Back) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a lot of variations of it by now - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach (Smack Back) 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Everyone is allowed free speech. Even if this is an attack people need to have the right to speak out against administrators.--God of War 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NPA , divisive and uncalled for. 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I opposed User:Kelly Martin's actions in her pre-emptive deletion of Userboxes, but this is divisive and inflammatory in the current climate. As is the original prototype spoof "Userbox" which appears to have been created by User:El C supporting the "purge" (and derivatives thereof such as Template:User survived, now gone). A question to User:Sam Korn: will you also be removing all instances of El C's template, even when not transcluded, because that is equally inflammatory? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an attack, it is a creative way to provide a link to an RfC, where concerned wikipedians can voice their opinions on the matter. If this userbox is deleted, wikipedia has lost all perspective. --Dschor 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this reminds me an aweful lot of the time someone was going around signing his name [[communist|Howard Dean]], wasn't terribly funny then...--64.12.116.6 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - {{User purge}} was much better, but it was deleted and protected against recreation by Martin-supporting admins before even bringing it to TfD.
This is just an example, so people can see what it actually was:
File:Stalin3.jpg This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.
I was actually banned for even having this on my user page, so beware if you're under the misunderstanding that you actually have any right to free speech on your user page. -_- Template:Bigspace --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach (Smack Back) 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach (Smack Back) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as creator of both, can I authorize a speedy here? Not sure of the current rules for templates. {{MDmusic}} is preferred, and I am gradually switching all the states to use it. Hawaii is done, so this template can be safely deleted. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*-court

Template:Burger-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Chase-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ellsworth-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Fuller-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Hughes-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Jaycourt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Marshall-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rehnquist-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rutledge-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Stone-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taft-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taney-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Vinson-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Waite-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Warren-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:White-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Templates do not appear to be used any more. DLJessup (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This is a call to arms and totally lacks NPOV. Practically unused at present but ought not to be allowed, whatever one feels about the great Userbox debate of New Years' Eve. David | Talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark1 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consistency across the encyclopaedia is a good thing, but this is NOT the way to do it, and just bites the newbies. The language used in the latter two is not helpful at all and will scare off new editors and antagonise experienced editors. I agree wholeheartedly with Metaeducation - leave a note with a link to the relevant style guide. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mess2

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

  • The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
    • 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [4] is PD (Office of War Information).
    • 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
    • Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
  • Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading. The vast majority of works from the Library of Congress are not in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not even a reasonable assumption that a random image from the LOC is PD. An image's copyright status should be investigated before it's uploaded anyway. "Known good" images should be tagged properly as PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and alternative proposal. People thoughtlessly uploading images from the LOC website is a major source of unintentional copyright violation. Some images there are PD, but very many are copyrighted. The Library of Congress is rarely an original source of images, and images from their website should normally just be treated like any other images, and be attributed to their original source. There is one distinctive aspect of copyrights and the Library of Congress, though, that is important: they are rather good librarians, and so often document when the copyright on a post-1922 image has not been renewed. They have also sometimes made arrangements with photographers that have allowed their photographs to become public domain much sooner than otherwise would have happened. As the LOC can be a good source on the murky copyright status of post-1922 images, I propose the following template (Template:PD-US-LOC) instead for images it is appropriate for.--Pharos 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States Federal Government
This image was first published in the United States in 1923 or later, but is considered public domain by the Library of Congress because its copyright has not been renewed or has been formally released, or for another reason.

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach (Smack Back) 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach (Smack Back) 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Template:MLB Athletics franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Vw

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You cannot be blocked for violating guidelines. You may however be taken to an RFC or an RFAr over it. The probable effect for enforcing a guideline is by consensus reversion; then the 3RR would serve its purpose and not this template. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nom and because violating the MoS is not vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

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

The template
‹ Templates for discussion ›
has been
proposed for deletion

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everything above. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw it in half, no wait that would create 2 templates... Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:50, Jan. 2, 2006

Template:Off-topic

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

Template:ROT13

Template:ROT13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Uncategorized

Redundant with, and less practical than, Special:Uncategorizedpages. In addition, using this template breaks the more often used Special:Uncat, because it puts the articles in the oxymoronic Category:Category needed. Delete. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 2

Not used. Replacement: template:web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: It's really not used. At the present situation the compatible template:web reference can be used without breaking articles if somebody finds a leftover call of web reference 2 (I think I got them all converted to web reference). To Neto: you can act on template:web reference then at one strike. Or do you want to convert an old fork of web reference, too? Adrian Buehlmann 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 4

Was an unused redirect to Template:Web reference 2 which I intend to nominate later too (needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University5

Template:Infobox University5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used. In fact all of Infobox University4-6 are used very sparingly and could probably be fixed not to be used at all. --platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web-reference

Was a redirect to Template:Web reference. Deprecated and defunct. Adrian Buehlmann 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: the original creator wrote in the edit summary of the first revision "'ve mistyped this one too many times. Making the redirect, so I won't have to do it again.". Maintaining templates is already quite a hard job. Adding redirects for typos of heavy use templates is just a bad idea. Adrian Buehlmann 10:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete license

Redundant with Template:No license. --Puzzlet Chung 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuberculosis

Not really a candidate for an article series, given that the top two in this list will be merged. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European communist parties

Template:European communist parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template does not show how all these parties are banded together (in the same organization, etc.) or closely related. and the images take too long to load.--Jiang 08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Jiang 08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template lists the major referent of the World Communist Movement in each country. --Soman 09:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For Soman's reasons. The images can, possibly, be made smaller, but the template is good. Afonso Silva 10:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, the template should at least be changed to reflect that these are the members of the World Communis Movement, and not "Communist parties", of which there are quite a few more than the ones listed. For example, if you talk about "the communist party" in Sweden, SKP are not the ones you're most likely to think of... —Gabbe 16:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if edited to make it more clear which "Communist" parties are being considered for inclusion. Practically every country in the world has multiple parties which claim to be communist. Some of these are Leninist, some Maoist, some Stalinist, some Trotskyist, and so on. Also, I'm not too thrilled about the images; can't we just have a simple list? —Psychonaut 17:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like the images. It is not an unimportant matter, as the choice of symbolism also denotes political differences. Compare KPÖ/PCF with KKE, for example. Or note that some parties include national colours and other don't. BTW, aren't all communist parties Leninist by definition? --Soman 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: templates take up a lot of space on articles, and there's already either a politics or a "political parties in" template for most countries. When do we stop? That said, I think it's essentially a useful template. Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Jiang. There is no criterion for excluding the countless minor parties that are even considered fringe groups by even the members of the larger Communist parties, such as the anti-revisionsist Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, etc. Soman's comment is well taken; but note that the template name is "European communist parties," as opposed to a title that specifies that we are dealing with the historically Soviet-aligned parties (i.e. the ones listed in the template at the moment). 172 11:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Psychonaut - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality law

Template:Nationality law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Redundant with Wikipedia:legal disclaimer. It is established community policy not to use additional disclaimers in articles. Jiang 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Delete per nom DaGizza Chat 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ai kago-5

Template:User ai kago-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Master race? Hello? A userbox announcing to the world one's intention to create a master race? Is this Wikipedia or Fuehrerpedia? We don't need this crap here. Contributes nothing to Wikipedia, and it offends people. Like me. On second thought, maybe delete everything in the series except one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Todo, trains

We already have a Template:Todo and I don't see the value of having a slightly modified fork for a specific WikiProject. Suggest migrate to Template:Todo and delete. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Added note: The only apparent reason for this to be a fork of Template:Todo is to add Cat:To do, trains. I think this sets a poor precedent. -- Netoholic @ 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIP

Template:WIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template poorly duplicates a couple we already have, as well as utomatically feeding any article its marked with into the general stubs category (to give an example of why this is a bad thing, it's currently in use on only one article, and that is clearly not a stub). Unnecessary. 210.54.198.105 01:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (um, that's Grutness...wha?. Damn computer logged me out).[reply]

Template:NRL Grounds

Template:NRL Grounds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, only a couple of categories no other content. MeltBanana 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A template dependent upon Freenet/Ways to view a freesite (AFD discussion). Doesn't seem at all useful without it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a large number of pages (like more than ten) use this template then obviously there is a need for it and it shouldn't be deleted. If there is enough need to warrant keeping it, then I think the original article should be moved to a more appropriate space, as the AfD debate can be summed up as "I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something?"
I forget how to check template usage, but obviously if this template is deleted we lose some external links which will need to be removed or otherwise fixed. --TexasDex 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Template:Atlanta conventions

Unused nav template. All links in the template are red. - TexasAndroid 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security Risk

This template reads "this article poses a risk to international security and should be edited." If one of our articles actually poses a risk to international security it needs far more than a template, and any such issues should be brought directly to the board. However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern. - SimonP 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See British Embassy in Washington, D.C. and its talk page for an example of this template in action. - SimonP 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is akin to those who publish other peoples' personal information on Wikipedia and is just as bad. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, a person's information is private and even if it weren't it would be hard for it to be verifiable, an information on an embassy or other government building on the other hand is verifiable and publicly available and therefore eligible for inclusion. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per my argument above and the fact that these so called claims to national security are just straw man arguments. Information about embassies and other governmenmt agencies is publicly available and verifiable so it's eligible for inclusion and therefore having an article to tell people to remove it is flawed. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since terrorists would much rather attack world leaders, can I trust that the addresses for the residences of the leaders of the US and UK will be purged from Wikipedia? --Golbez 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAgain: Wikipedia IS NOT an addressbook and has no mechanism to trace those individuals looking for the address information of diplomatic missions. Other websites have this ability. Since the only medium we can compare this issue is to the Internet, it is important that we remain vigilant in the war on terrorism and the ability to track those that would cause harm to others. The strong will and desire of others to continue to delete these security templates is itself a matter of concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZed (talk • contribs) 19:55, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
Bullshit, A) it's impossible for us to know who's viewing this information and it's not our job to police information, we are a free encyclopedia that consists of verifiable and factual information, what you want is censorship due to a percieved threat which is baseless. WP:NOT should be expanded to state that Wikipedia is not censored at the behest of people who have irrational national security fears. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Hopefully, the debacle that has unfolded here demonstrates to Wikipedia editors, adminstrators and arbitrators the need to KEEP important templates such as these. Rather than deal with the case in a fair and polite manner, this IP was banned from WIKI to prevent further comment. Irregardless of the fact that the 3 Revert Rule was not adequately and fairly re-inforced when it came to the original vandalizer User:SimonP, and irregardless of the fact that two seperate admins banned my IP twice within a minute for the same infraction (how is that even possible?) When real security matters arise here on WP, what are the mechanisms Jimbo Wales et al have implemented to ensure that there is a secure method to report users to police/security/proper authorities when material of a sensitive nature continues to be posted? I hope none of the long-time admins here who have ignored this issue would suggest that this template does not have a place here on Wikipedia. PeterZed 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors, administrators and arbitrators are all watching you make a fool out of yourself. The addresses and locations of foreign embassies are as sensitive and vital to national security as my shoe size. FCYTravis 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Let's see... Editors of the Animal Liberation Front use the term target to describe current operations here on Wikipedia. How is this not a candidate to be tagged as an international security risk when they are possibly identifying post-secondary institutions as potential locations for terrorist activity? yet Wikipedians suggest that there is noneed for a security template? PeterZed 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that Peter Zed has been a little too zealous and failed to actually read the article. It lists universities that have been attacked in the past by groups claiming to be the Animal Liberation Front. By the same logic, you may as well add that template to the Al Qaeda article if it mentions the US embassy in Nigeria or the Twin Towers.--BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- **I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he is, politely, saying that the template is bound for the bit bucket, whatever tortured reading you give to that post. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lolling pin! - FrancisTyers 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see this has been deleted already, but wouldn't having a convient tag marking all of the good stuff have made it easier on the bad guys? I mean, why go searching for stuff when you can just go straight to everything marked Security Risk.
  • COMMENT

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

  • Is that a legal threat I smell? We have nothing more to clarify to you, you are the one who is being deliberately vague and mysterious. --Golbez 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT There is nothing vague and mysterious about the clear security risk that posting photographs and addresses of diplomatic missions on this website poses. Supporters of known terrorist groups are permitted to freely edit, distribute and create materials here. The template itself was deleted before due process granted. I am suggesting that traffic emanating from and directed to this website be blocked from the servers of certain legal jurisdictions in order to prevent the further spread of misinformation as well as tools that may allow terrorists to create havoc.PeterZed 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You have yet to explain why it's a security risk to have the British Embassy's address on Wikipedia, when it's plainly visible on their webpage. Since you have not even bothered to answer this, which has been asked multiple times, I am forced to disregard you as a minor, but persistent, troll, someone who has absolutely no desire to assist international security and is just poking and prodding us for what I must assume to be your own amusement. --Golbez 23:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only think that letting this TFD finish would do is lower the percentage of votes in favor of it. Unless you got some of your "security proffesional" colleagues to come and vote. --Chris 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

Template creates a false assertion of copyright status, the Biographical Directory of the United States copyright details clearly state that not all images on the site are in the public domain, template needs to be explicitly rewritten or deleted and images taken from the site tagged within the existing tagging structure.--nixie 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite. - 99% of Biographical Directory of Congress images are PD. "copyright information is provided whenever possible". This states all US Federal Government sites such as Library of Congress or NARA. So, if you want to delete it, nominate also other US-Gov templates. - Darwinek 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rewrite. as Darwinek above - we seem to be delete crazy all of a sudden - this is a prefectly good template. The direct objection should be addressed which is the wording of the template - not the template itself. Kevinalewis 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per everyone else. A perfectly good template with just one problem -- a problem that only needs boldness to accomplish. Basically, word it something like:
United States Federal Government
This portrait or photograph of a U.S. Congress member was provided by the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. According to the copyright page, the image is under the public domain unless other copyright information is given.

Template:Language/Malayalam

See below - identical template.

Template:MalayalamScript

Performs the exact same function as the existing {{IndicText}}. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks?? The Malayalam template was presumably created after being vetted by the usual long process, now somebody summarily empties the category without so much as a by-your-leave?? I am speechless. ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I hope this is sarcasm. What vetting process do you speak of? This template was used on at most four pages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Best practice, and best intention is served by keeping the categorgy intact durign this process. wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I previously said really unclear? Template creation requires a long vetting process. So does deletion. When the process is defined, and debate here is ongoing, why did you (Sukh) take it upon yourself to empty the category? ImpuMozhi 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being blind, but I certainly don't see the 'long vetting process' that this template went into. And I merely changed the existing four uses of the template BACK to the original Indic template. It is a wiki after all... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having that warning in Devnagiri script will not serve the purpose. The 'Kerala' written in the page is in Malayalam script, which is no where close to the Devnagiri script. The people who can read 'Kerala' written in Malayalam script(and if that person doesn't know devnagiri script) will readily go and modyfying it(assuming his/her browser is not indic script compliant). Even with that warning some people try to correct it. I hope i have made my point clear.--Raghu 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in the current template is not in Devanagari, it is in Gurmukhi and it isn't meant to show every single possible Indic script (there could very well be hundreds of Brahmi descended scripts that the Indic text template is useful for). It's merely a VERY SIMPLE representative example and does not indicate that the script on the page must be Gurmukhi. What should we do for pages that contain, Malayalam, Devanagari and Gurmukhi? List three identical templates with different pictures!? How about pages that might list even more Indian languages and scripts?
The template talks about the technology to enable support for Indic scripts in general which applies just as much to Malayalam as it does to Gurmukhi, Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil etc. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the same principle to apply to all Indic scripts (which is only fair of course), we'd need at least 23 to account for all the ones currently encoded in Unicode. This does not include scripts YET to be encoded in Unicode. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My Answers
  • The difference between scripts of Devanagari and Gurumukhi is minor. Even i was able to understand Gurumukhi with a knowledge of Devanagari only.
  • Your point that it will necessitate 100's of template is not correct beacause all North Indian languages scripts are similar and most people who speak other north Indian languages like Punjabi, Gujarathi, Marathi and Bengali have a good knowlege of Hindi (and consequently Devanagari or the very similar gurumukhi script). So we are left with four South Indian langauges. Telugu and Kannada script are mutually intelligible. Tamil and Malayalam are pretty close but if needed we can have separate one for Tamil. so totally we need 4 templates.
  • If a page has more than one indic script? There are few pages like that. In case it is there use the generic Gurumukhi Template as more people will understand that.
  • If there exists a template which does the needed function in a better way. Why delete?
Regards--Raghu 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - The scripts are similar yes, but there is no way you would be able to decipher Gurmukhi characters when you know just Devanagari. Some characters are deceptively similar (e.g. Devanagari प /pa/ looks like Gurmukhi ਧ /dha/) while I do admit, some are similar in appearance. Also Gurmukhi has a special nasal sign called Tippi, it uses Adhak for geminates and it does not employ half forms. Gurmukhi departs in greater ways from Devanagari (from which it didn't descend) than some South Indian scripts do.
Point 2 - The picture is merely representative of the rendering technology (I picked it because it was the most simple representation of complex rendering). You can consider it to be a bit of a 'logo' and it could be replaced with a star, an asterisk or anything else to grab attention. You also fail to realise that Brahmic (Indic) scripts are not just the preserve of India, and Mongolian, Lao, Tibetan, Thai and others are visually very distinct and don't correspond to similarities in North/South Indian scripts. So how do you propose adding templates for these? Indeed what about many older scripts that come under the umbrella of complex text rendering?
Point 3 - But then what to do about all the people who in your opinion won't recognise it because it's in Gurmukhi? Surely the same problem occurs. Multiple Indic scripts are used on many pages already on Wikipedia, and this will only increase as time goes by.
Point 4 - This isn't in my opinion any better than the existing template. Indeed, the only reason I think it was made was because someone saw the Gurmukhi (or, Devanagari-esque) characters and deduced it may be some latent means of promoting North Indian scripts or languages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - You are missing the point. The alphabet shown in the image on the template 'Vi' to explain the concept is similar (I was able to decipher)to the one in Devanagari. Leave alone the rest of the difference you say there exist between the two.
Point 2 - I agree with you. It would need hard labour to do that in all Languages. If somebody is going to do that for some other languages, it would be really useful.
Point 3 - The 'many' pages you are talking about will be less than 2% of all pages containing indic texts. I already told what can be done about those pages.
Point 4 - that seems to be your POV. I can't help with that.
Regards --Raghu 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Gurmukhi one actually says 'ki' not 'vi'! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions are not the only thing provided my that. It also warns the innocent newbie users to not go ahead and try editing to make it look correct (this warning is provided inside the edit section as a comment but has proved to be not good enough, check the Chennai page to see how many corrections have taken place in the lst 200 edits or so. Atleast 5-6). This warning will be best when it is given in the native script of each language. The alphabet should also be chosen carefully like 'ka' for Kerala. 'Ma' for Tamil Nadu etc. It would simply be great if User:Sukh could design a template that would take an alphabet as the input and display it!!--Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the image with something neutral. The template could also be changed to take the language of the page and display it, in place of IndicText. See {{user wikipedia}} for an example. --Pamri • Talk 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a separate malayalam template doesn't hurt anyone, and to assume that Devanagari alone is the best symbol of Indic scripts is essentially Aryanocentric. --Soman 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to do with Devanagari on the entire IndicText template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I mistook it for a Devanagari 'vi'. Anyways, it hardly doesn't make my argument less valid. Why should Gurkmukhi get to represent all Indic scripts? Isn't that one of the latest inventions, out of which none of the other major scripts have emerged? --Soman 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't that one of the latest inventions" - more of a gradual evolution, but yes, maybe that is the reason? :D No, but seriously, we could replace it with a star, or something that doesn't show a particular script if that is the only reason people don't want to use this template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could even be replaced with an image of a Brahmi character. That is, after all, the mother script ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't give a damn. Guys, you are arguing about a warning template that will hopefully be obsolete in half a year, or whenever MS decides to fix their browser. Maybe we should delete both templates, and leave it to people to figure out their own browser instead of plastering templates about browser issues all over Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first point at which Microsoft will automatically enable complex text support is in Vista - so you're looking at at least six years before we see the trickle down effect. Indeed, in some of the pages that the template is listed, it not only ruins the flow of the page, but is obtrusive (this can be fixed on a page-by-page basis by repositioning it and other boxes). Indeed, I hope to prevent the proliferation of lots of different script boxes that will become harder to maintain and will have no advantage over the current template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where exactly is the problem. I have WinXP with service Pack 1 and 2. My IE shows the indic scripts properly!!! My problem is with the Firefox browser. --Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well for starters, Malayalam was only added on SP2. The reason IE works and Firefox doesn't is because IE calls the international text API (Uniscribe) directly whereas Firefox doesn't. You need to physically enable complex text support on your computer for it to work. See the link on the IndicText template for full instructions for ALL Indian scripts: Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, a suggestion: two syllables are featured on the "Indic" template; need they both be Gurmukhi? Perhaps if one were Malayalam, it would serve to mollify all concerned. The choice of these two scripts as representative would also be "nice" in the sense that both of them are, to coin a word, "non-rampant" in India and do not elicit strong emotions (script-evolution theories, 'aryanocentrism', all find mention in the day-long discussion above). ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two pictures indicate what complex rendering does. In that example, it's repositioning vowel sign i. So it shows a 'before complex text rendering' and an 'after complex text rendering' image. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 6

Possibly unused redirect (I do not know how to check that for shure, due to the possibly incomplete "what links here" list) to Template:Web reference 3, which is barely used either (I intend to nominated that later too, needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dichotomouskey

Redundant with the very flexible Template:Wikibookspar. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UNSecGen

Too specific. There are only seven of them, and I've moved them to use the more generic Template:Infobox Person. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer UN Secretary-General

Compelety unused. The infobox provides predecessor/sucessor links. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saskatchewan

Template:Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Album infobox 2

  • Review so what happened to this whilst most of us were not watching over the holidays, there was no clear concensus so how was this to be a remove authority. There were issues with the clicking on the image but they had been solved. I cannot believe that such creativity should be stamped upon also I don't believe if we are able to use an image we fall foul if we are an image in such an innocuous way. Most of all what is the point of these votes is they are ridden roughshod over! Kevinalewis 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold the action taken, for the reasons cited for the action: fork templates are discouraged and we should be mindful of fair use.—jiy (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The action taken is against consensus (in fact, there was no consensus, it ended 21 to 20 in favor of deleting, and that was counting one vote that was unsigned). Regardless, I've suggested to Kevinalewis that he discuss this at WP:DRV. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that more than vote count was taken into consideration when interpretating the consensus of this TfD. Many of the support votes did not provide rationales for keeping the template, or at least refer to a substantiative rationale they agree with, and so their contributions to the discussion are given less weight. On the other hand, most of the delete votes made it clear that fork templates are bad, and that the template probably violates fair use. The strongest recurring argument on the keep side seems to be that the images might qualify under fair use. Yet in these cases where there is a division in opinion on legal matters, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.—jiy (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Jiy says. The two main arguments for deletion are 1) it being a fork (people should edit templates they disagree with rather than creating new versions) and 2) the legal consideration of fair use. Radiant_>|< 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

Template:Battlebox no campaign

Delete: No longer used, deprecated by Template:Infobox Military Conflict. —Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:the pillows

Delete: I see no reason for this template to be used, especially since:

  1. None of the members (former members included) have articles written about them; and
  2. None of the members (again former members included) really have done anything outside of the group. JB Adder | Talk 05:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. WikiFanatic 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What exactly is wrong with this template? It contains their discography and is used as a quick navigation page between pages on their albums. Makes sense to me. Please answer me this: if this template is deleted, what navigational tool would you replace it with on their album pages? As for the band members being on there, I've taken care of that. --Cyde Weys votetalk 14:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack on population center

Delete: It is a redundant template - the only two articles that used it now use the Template:Infobox Military Conflict. Loopy 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing preventing you from adding civilian casualties to {{Infobox Military Conflict}}; see Battle of Stalingrad, for example. —Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I speak for vast majority of the world's civilians when I say that the most important thing about any military conflict is whether civilians were vicitims of it. Therefore it is just and proper that the template heading display that information. Plus, Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict provides much less detailed information. I can't believe that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is being suggested as a serious alternative to Template:Attack on population center --James S. 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into philosophical issues here, I still don't see how the older template is better; it has the exact same casualties fields as the new one. —Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between the two templates is the design. Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is a flexible infobox that can be used to represent anything from a war, to a battle, to a mass slaughter of military or civilians, to any kind of conflict you would like to put in. I'm not really sure how you can argue that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is much less detailed than Template:Attack on population center when, as Kirill Lokshin pointed out above, they're precisely the same... --Loopy 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

Template:US City infobox

Delete. Unused redirect to template:Infobox U.S. City. Adrian Buehlmann 20:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to change my vote to keep per Netoholic's prove below. So this nomination is in fact cancelled (But it's interesting for technical reasons). Adrian Buehlmann 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's a redirect that is useful. There's also no way to know if any articles still use that. A page may call "US City infobox" but the Whatlinkshere will show a link to the target of the redirect, not the redirect itself. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a technical question: I thought the "What links here" clicked on the redirect page (the one that contains the #redirect instruction) lists all articles that refer to the redirect. Am I wrong? Adrian Buehlmann 09:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No you are not wrong. [5] I'm not clear why Netoholic said what he did; the redirect is plainly not used anywhere, merely referenced in discussions and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Pick some random articles from the Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox U.S. City. Now, you'd think that those would all call that template directly, but you're wrong. I picked Portland, Maine and as of this note, it is using "{{Template:US City infobox|". The link skips the redirect and refers to the redirects target instead (not listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:US City infobox. It may be a bug or a feature, but redirects have been working like this for at least a couple weeks. -- Netoholic @ 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's annoying. I was puzzled as to why there was anything listed at all in Whatlinkshere, but it seems that only wikilinks to the template are listed, not actual template calls. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I could reproduce that. Thanks for the example. I thought I had found all instances of articles that still use the redirect "US City infobox" (old name of the template) but I didn't due to the incomplete "what links here list" on the redirect. I think that's a bug, but maybe I just cannot see for what this behaviour should be good. Well, however changing my vote to Keep. Adrian Buehlmann 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Netoholic is correct here, and this is a deceptive bug/feature. I noted that performing a null edit on Portland, Maine did not correctly update the Whatlinkshere list either. This is frightening in light of the recent movement to delete stub template redirects, as the effects of such deletions (i.e., a red link at the bottom of pages previously flagged as stubs) would go unnoticed for a greater period of time. For related discussion, see [6] — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:27, Dec. 27, 2005
    • actually, not at all - we've been working with the problem at SFD for some time. Didn't realise no-one here knew about it. As far as stubs are concerned, since all stub templates have dedicated categories, it's simply a case of a manual or bot-assisted check of all articles within the category. With templates that have no dedicated categories, though, it could be a fairly major problem. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      For what its worth, this was listed at VPP several weeks back. It was reported after first being noted on WP:SFD in early November (see Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Template redirects). Not sure whether anyone filed a bug report, and unfortunately the Village pump isn't archived that I know of and I can't recall what the outcome of the discussions there was - but it is a known bug. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk1

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk2

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pulmed Basilisk

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mos4

  • Delete as per nom. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. violet/riga (t) 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-word to align with Mos3, and re-word to make intention clearer, and note that this template applies only to changes that do nothing except deliberately deviate from MoS. Any edit that adds content does not count. Neonumbers 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- after all, the MoS itself contradicts this template in the first paragraph. Neonumbers has a point, though...--SarekOfVulcan 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't block good editors over style issues. Firebug 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, or Fix and Rename. "Those rules are mandatory" it says, in direct contradiction to the MoS itself (see Template:Mosblock discussion above). If it said "Those guidelines are optional, but should only be altered for good reason, with consensus. Edits deliberately against consensus may be considered vandalism, and result in you being blocked." then I might support keeping it under the name Mos2, so long as it was never used as a substitute for discussion, and never used in contradiction to WP:AGF. There is absolutely no need for Mos3 or Mos4, just use the vandalism templates. Aumakua 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl The arbitration ruling makes sense if one takes principle 2.2 to mean that the contents of the MoS are changeable and not set in stone. Kelly Martin is correct in alluding to the instances in which MoS guidelines are contradictory and thus may have to be ignored and/or modified with good reason. Her comments are well-reasoned as usual. However, principle 2.2 does not negate the possibility of violations of the MoS guidelines that do reach the level of vandalism. For example, if an editor goes against consensus on a universally accepted principle of the MoS in order to push a POV or to harass other editors, it is clear vandalism, and the user should be blocked. 172 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template is blatantly incorrect, and would not be necessary if 'twere correct. This is legalism gone mad. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Along with its bretheren, contradicts the MoS. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UT-Austin

Delete: This template is redundant; one serving the same purpose already exists at Template:User_longhorn. -Rebelguys2 09:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. -Scm83x 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created in error, unaware of existing template. Mea Culpa.1001001 10:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gigem Aggies! I mean uhm, yeah ...its a duplicate, thats it! --Naha|(talk) 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Template:Infobox Proprietary Software

Delete: Obsolete by {{Infobox Software}}. - David Björklund (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flensburg infobox

Delete unused and redundant with {{Infobox Town DE}} --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Equatorial Guinea infobox

Delete: This template seems to be a copy of the infobox in article Equatorial Guinea and is apparently not used anywhere. Thuresson 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PureStates

Delete: "Pure" states? Anyway, not used. dbenbenn | talk 03:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Feminist

Sexist anti-female propaganda by User:D-Day:

User:D-Day decided this, {{User Feminist}}, would be a good addition to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. The symbol for feminism, as picked by D-Day is "I h8 men" with a link to Feminism.

Somehow, I don't agree: This is nothing but sexist propaganda by D-Day (who I've not talked to before, I just noticed this template addition as the Userboxes project pages are all on my watchlist), designed to convey falsehoods like "all feminists hate men"/"feminists are lesbians", etc --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes: *Delete --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

  • Keep' My apologies if this was offensive. It was created in an attempt to be a lighter tone and I did not mean to offend anyone, nor set any kind of prejudice. I'll change it to try to make it less offensive. --D-Day 17:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

Template:Infobox BridgeSpecificWithMap

Duplicates main Template:Infobox Bridge now that support for the map was made optional. Was only used on four articles, so I moved them to Infobox Bridge. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Police Officer

Seems a tad too specific. Only used on two articles, which are themselves up for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 09:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Early Muslim conflicts

Listing for Zora. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands this template really gets in the way. If it's kept, which I think right now is a bad idea, it should be made much smaller and so it is put at the bottom of articles. We have battle boxes which are supposed to go where Striver has put it. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • i also agree that it should be deleted. at the very least, someone needs to edit it, as it has numerous grammar and spelling errors (why are there no apostrophes?!). but moreover, i'm just not sure how the template really adds anything. Dgl 11:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really know much about the topic, but if it makes sense to group them together, I don't see why not have it. Further, the complaint about the apostrophes is trivial, I have just fixed that. –Andyluciano 19:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "them" that are being grouped are highly heterogeneous. They aren't all "conflicts", for one thing. The Hijra was not a conflict. Succession to Muhammad was a political struggle, but not a battle. Treaties aren't conflicts! The timeline is also undefined. After complaining to the creator of the template, who is a Shi'a Muslim, that ending the template with the Battle of Karbala was POV, he added one other revolt. But why stop there? Why not everything that happened during the Umayyad caliphate? Also, even with the punctuation problems fixed, there are still red links, mispellings, etc. We have one editor weighing in here, Dgl, who has a master's degree in Islamic studies. He wrote the article on the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. If he thinks this template is useless, it's useless. We already have extensive interlinking between Islamic history articles, plus an article on Islamic history, plus a timeline of Islamic history. That's enough to orient readers. Zora 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If all that is needed is a chronological list of battles, the proper way to do it is via a campaignbox template. —Kirill Lokshin 21:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zora. Pepsidrinka 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use the campaignbox, Luke. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Warbox or Campaignbox can replace it. Roy Al Blue 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


December 21

Userfy

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User Template:User:shreshth91/welcome-2 Template:User:shreshth91/welcome Template:User:APclark/Babel Template:User:Alex Nisnevich/sidebar Template:User:Alex Nisnevich/sig Template:User:Autoit script Template:User:Carnildo/Nospam Template:User:Cool Cat/Imposter Template:User:DaGizza/Sg Template:User:DaGizza/Welcome for Cricket Template:User:DaGizza/Welcome for Rugby Template:User:Encyclopedist/Usercomment Template:User:Encyclopedist/Welcome! Template:User:Gator1/dbtemplate Template:User:Ianbrown/Templates/away Template:User:SWD316/sidebar Template:User:Shreshth91/welcome Template:User:SimonMayer/Nav Box Template:User:Super-Magician/Main Template:User:Super-Magician/Sandbox Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature/Time Template:User:Super-Magician/Signature nosign Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/AST Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/CDT Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/CST Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/EDT Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatus/EST Template:User:Super-Magician/StormStatusNone Template:User:Super-Magician/Wikistress3D/Left Template:User:Super-Magician/Wikistress3D/Right Template:User:TShilo12/Welcome Template:User:V.Molotov/Welcome! Template:User:cacumer/linkbox Template:User/Manjith Template:User-alfakim-signature

Holding cell

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


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

Tools

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

  • None currently

Other

  • See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

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

To substitute

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

To orphan

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

Ready for deletion

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

  • None currently
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=33809114"