Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Not deleted/December 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:User NoSanta[edit]

Note that the accompanying category has been listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.

I consider this to be unacceptable and POV. --Santa on Sleigh 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all userboxes are POV - the whole point is that they illustrate the POV of the user. Also, if you're deleting this one then surely you should delete {{user Santa}}. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 18:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is in use on several user pages already. User boxes don't hurt anyone, you choose if you want to use them or not. Many userboxes are POV, does that mean we should delete them all and take some fun out the personal side of Wikipedia which people enjoy on their userpages? — Wackymacs 18:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see two viable options: 1. We keep this template, which is no better or worse than any of the dozens of other humorous user tags that have sprung up. 2. We userfy all of the silly things, and dump them onto a page from which people can manually copy them. Personally, I would prefer the latter, because it appears as though the Wikipedia:Babel project is being taken over by comedy. Somehow, a practical means of displaying useful information has become an online car bumper. And for heaven's sake, we need to put the kibosh on the accompanying categories. "Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa"? "Wikipedians who drink Pepsi"? Come on! —David Levy 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless template only intended to upset children. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't hurt anything, I highly doubt that anyone will be hurt more by this when we have userpages such as SPUI's and Deeceevoice's. Blackcap (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but definitely scrap the accompanying categories. Userboxes are intended to work alongside Babel, but no together with it. Templatising the boxes just enables users to easily share common templates without the excessive text. The deletion of this template would put a searing knife through large parts of WP:UBX, because it is of fundemental importance to that project that userbox templates can be freely created. As for upsetting children... I presume you're joking. If not... well I can't imagine you're being serious so I'm not going to make a fool out of myself any further. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My thorough forensic analysis revealed a blatant violation of WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above (though frankly it's not that big a deal) Radiant_>|< 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless you are also going to delete all the other userboxes intended as "humour" (which probably by now make up about 50% of all existing userboxes) laug 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Violation of WP:POINT by Santa on Sleigh who obviously has a vested financial interest in maintaining the myth. Bah, humbug! to all deletionists :) --Cactus.man ✍ 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it now no longer violates WP:AUM because I subst'd {{userbox}}. Alternatively, one can put the User ____ templates on the list of templates to be subst'd (so the {{userbox}} template gets saved instead of User ____), but it'd probably be better to subst the userbox template into the individual User templates, since I don't think {{userbox}} changes at all. One might want to premanently protect {{userbox}} as well. If it is expected that {{userbox}} will never change (and if the template becomes permanently protected), WP:AUM might not apply in this case. --AySz88^-^ 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per Cactus.man →AzaToth 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this template is unacceptable POV, then clearly so is the account used by the sockpuppeteer who nominated it for deletion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:17, Dec. 28, 2005
  • Keep - Userboxes are supposed to display a POV or an aspect of a user. They are designed for userpages, a place where users are supposed to tell people about themselves, and usually where POV is not taken into account since it is considered that a user can do what they want there, providing its not breaking any of the wiki laws. As for WP:AUM - yes, it does break it, but so does the whole userbox/babel system, so I presume if this template is deleted on those grounds, Template:User en is going to have to go, and I'm not sure the 4500+ people who use it will like that. If you look on the average userpage, WP:AUM is utterly undermined with the usage of babel box templates for userbox organisation. If userboxes are to be restricted to language only - then it destroys part of the culture of wikipedia, and I feel that would be a great regression in wikipedia status, as well as holding no full reasoning. Also, I feel the template is not POV in many aspects, it mearly shows what the user believes: it does not say it is wrong, or that he doesn't exist. I feel this template's removal would do a great injustice to the wiki, and where would the line be drawn - would userboxes and babel be altogether removed, or would Wikipedia just lose its sence of community? Should this template be removed, it will only complicate the managment of userboxes (I for one certainly have enougth to do) and members would be forced to use Template:Userbox to create the desired effect, or would Template:Userbox have to go, and users will have to waste even more of their encyclopedic writing time fiddling with div's - and yes that would lead to less server strain, but is it really worth it for that work and effort? Oh, and the nominator will have to be banned for a POV username, which is far more noticeable. I also notice how the nominator is using the Template:User Santa on their userpage - is this nomination to promote his/her point of view? Ian13ID:540053 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to how Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild purports that "Islam is one of the greatest religions in the world". --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User messiah[edit]

PS I have to admit I'm not 100% objective on this as I created the template myself.

Template:Literarypunkgenre[edit]

Delete: Seeing as most of the articles that this template links together are listed at AfD, I thought it should join them. I suspect its creator wants it gone, as he recently blanked the page. - EurekaLott 23:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Salt the Earth --J13 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image-license[edit]

  • Delete: Created to standardize image templates and leave room for the EXIF Metatable (in its old location). Now that the metatable has moved and some uses have been reverted, it's time for this to go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Please see below for a short but important note regarding the nomination.[reply]
  • Delete: seems to have relatively little usage? I added {{tfd-inline|Image-license}} to it to alert folks. ++Lar 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HKCrownCopyright[edit]

in zh wp deleted. seezh:Wikipedia:删除投票和请求/2005年12月15日 and [2]--Shizhao 01:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Original discussion can be found in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive1. The deletion was not properly conducted in the Chinese Wikipedia, as the participants have misinterpreted "District Council" (a government statutory body) as "British Council" (a quasi-official, non-Hong Kong organization) who corresponded with PZFUN. Until the status of the template has been properly discussed, I would go for keeping this template for now. Carlsmith 11:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Middle-earth portal[edit]

Delete:"Easter egg" style link to Portal:Middle-earth. This is bad in terms of navigation, as the reader has no idea what the link is, and to further complicate things, they'd likely assume that the image links there too. I don't think that a link to Portal:Middle-earth needs a template. On some pages, this template can cause appearance issues as it clutters up the space, especially those with some templates and images already. See for example The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Category:Middle-earth. This kind of link would be more appropriate in text form under "See also" headings, however not on all ~80 pages it currently exists on. --Qirex 01:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved the portal down on The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) - this link shows where it was when Qirex commented above on it causing appearance issues. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Further note: the picture link has been fixed, thanks to Locke Cole, and I just added Middle Earth Portal to the caption. --Go for it! 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn because, as CBD pointed out, this is "a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Portal to determine if the way all portals are linked". I'm sorry that I didn't better research the whole portals thing and save everyone the bother. Thank you Locke Cole and Go for it! for making improvements to the template.

Question: should I go ahead and remove the tfd tag and place tfd-kept to the template talk page or is that something only an admin does? --Qirex 15:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an admin may close it early if you, as the nominator, have withdrawn your nomination (which you've done). Especially since the voting is leaning heavily towards keep. —Locke Cole 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page may be speedily kept if the nominator withdraws his nomination and there are no "delete" votes. Or if someone wants to flex their WP:IAR muscles. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As of this writing there appears to be one "delete" vote, perhaps that voter could be persuaded to change his vote? (IIRC, he has been tagged as an inclusionist in some circles... smile)++Lar 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Fraid not. I really dislike portal templates. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You didn't explain your vote before. Is it something that can be fixed? --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I oppose links in articles to things outside of the article namespace. Phil Sandifer 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously as the creator I'm biased. That said, at most I'd think the template should be changed if consensus finds that it's purpose is confusing. Some of the issues listed above are actually standard practice for portals. For instance, it is standard to link articles related to a portal to that portal and put the portal links at the top of the page - see for instance Template:Philosophy portal and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy portal. Where images at the top of the page conflict the portal link can be moved down, as it always was for The Lord of the Rings, Middle-earth, History of Arda, and various others. The 'easter egg' was intended to be self evident to anyone familiar with the topic and follow the general concept of making portals 'personalized' to the topics they cover, but if there is concern about that the text can easily be replaced with a generic 'Middle-earth portal' message. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Undecided at the moment, but I'd like to add that I had no idea what it was when I first saw it. My first impulse was to delete it from the page because I took it for an irrelevant image (on The Hobbit, where the door of Moria isn't germaine to the subject) and didn't notice what it was until I was editing the page. It doesn't communicate its purpose very well even to one intimately familiar with the subject. But really, I think Wikipedia features should be aimed at the general reader. I'd vote to delete it in its present form, but with appropriate changes I'd vote to keep it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Recent changes are improvements, but could a different image be found? The current one is barely recognizable, and unless you already know what it's supposed to be it doesn't look in the least like a door. Not at my screen resolution anyway. (1024x768 on a 19" CRT. Didn't look good on the flat panel I use at work either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Really? It looked pretty good on my screens, but I tend to use higher resolution (1280 x 1024). I'll check it under different settings and see if it can be cleaned up. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm glad I spotted this one. It's creative. An element that is often stifled in encyclopedias. But this is Wikipedia, which encourages creativity and novel approaches to encyclopedia design. Though a portal link such as this should mention the portal. Simply add the link "Middle-earth portal" in a sentence immediately following the fabled line from the book. So that takes care of the easter egg issue. As for the picture, is there any way to make a picture part of a link? I'd really like to know. If not, perhaps it can be iconized. But this doesn't matter, since the picture is definitely on-theme, and if its text includes "Middle-earth portal", the user will know that's a clickable link. But the picture is a bit dark, and itself needs to be freshened up, but that's easy to fix. I agree that the template clashes on some pages, but it is a nice touch on those with nothing to clash with. And the statement about "this kind of link would be more appropriate in text form under "See also" headings" argues against portal link templates in general, but they are in common use throughout Wikipedia, so this is not the place to be pushing such an agenda, as it pertains to general policy. Portal link templates are a Wikipedia tradition, and are a means to centralize portals, which helps portals be precisely what they are supposed to be: centralized. Therefore, this deletion nomination should never have been posted. Instead, an effort should have been made to fix the template and adjust its placement. I don't see any evidence of such an effort on Qirex's part. Just a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response. Besides, this portal link accents the Middle-earth theme quite well, and using a picture of a portal to represent a Wikipedia portal is brilliant. This one's a keeper. Go for it! 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think to characterise this nomination as "a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response" is a misrepresentation. I came across template when I noticed some placement issues of {{bakshi}}, and went to ~10 pages to see if I could resolve the problem (see the second and third pages of my contribs). I am a firm believer in fixing problems where they exist. I nominated this template because I honestly do not see the need to place large and prominent links to portals mixed in with the main body of text, and if the template is to go at the bottom of the page anyway, then it may as well be represented with plain text under an internal links section; simpler is better. --Qirex 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Qirex, I can see your viewpoint, but the problem is that it runs contrary to virtually EVERY portal on Wikipedia. I didn't come up with the idea of putting portal links with images at the top of related articles... I just followed the standard set by earlier portals in doing so. Most of them use the generic portal link template, but it's still an image box. I haven't found a single WikiPortal which follows the 'text link in 'See also' section' standard you propose. This is therefore really a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Portal to determine if the way all portals are linked should be changed. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to vote 'delete' but alas, I cannot. I wouldnt read them books if I was tortured, but I understand that some people adore poor prose – so for their sake I vote this way.--Ezeu 02:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Phil Sandifer 02:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've fixed it so if the image is clicked on, it also takes you to the Portal (and not to the Image info). —Locke Cole 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's pretty cool. I know that's not exactly the strongest argument on Wikipedia, but there you have it. Kafziel 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of noms issues have been resolved, and others can be fixed by where its placed on the page. And, if for some reason it really doesnt work on a page, just dont use the graphic version, it's all optional anyway. --Stbalbach 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It can be very easily improved (and certainly will be) into a worthwhile portal link. In addition to changing the text and sharpening up or replacing the image, I would propose moving the text to the side as with the Philosophy portal, which I think is more attractive and less intrusive on the page. AGGoH 09:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like the template, and it can be improved. (Ibaranoff24 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - This template takes the cake. First, it's self-serving navel-gazing, elevating the LotR Portal/Wikiproject above others. Second, it relies on the Template:Click3 meta-template. Notice of this kind belongs on the Talk page... oh wait... it alrady exists in the form of Template:ME-project. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. First, the pleasantries of 'self serving navel gazing' aside, the whole point of portals is to promote a specific theme and there is no intent to 'raise one portal above others' here... because virtually every portal has 'non talk page' notices. Second, the Click3 template was added from this TfD discussion (see above). I tried to convert it from a meta-template into a single one, but was getting weird text overlap problems. I'll sort it out once the TfD ends and there aren't as many other adjustments to the template going on. As for Template:ME-project, I created that one to advertise the Wikiproject rather than the portal... just like every other Wikiproject/Portal combination on Wikipedia. --CBD ☎ ✉ 10:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong, delete. It doesn't just use, but relies on a copyright infringement out of the Fellowship of the Ring. Tolkien's estate has proven itself quite litigious in the past, and we have no defense whatsoever against this purely decorative use of the image. Remove the image, and all we have left is a fork of Template:Portal. —Cryptic (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted on the Image:MoriaSmall.JPG page, I don't think derivative works fall under copyright restrictions. If I'm wrong then we can replace the image with something else. BTW, it's Tolkien Enterprises which is "quite litigious" rather than the estate... completely different groups which often get mistakenly conflated. Not really at issue here though as one of them is certainly litigous. :] --CBD ☎ ✉ 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced image based on long review of copyright issues surrounding 'derivative works'. About the only thing about this template which hasn't changed since the TfD started is where it links to. :] I don't think there are any outstanding issues except Snowspinner's objection to links outside the main article space... which I can't see a way to square up with the concept of portals in general. --CBD ☎ ✉ 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per nomination withdrawal statement above. --JB Adder | Talk 02:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's much improved since the TfD started. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ReligionScotland[edit]

I liked this template at first look, as a navigation around Scots religions. But, it isn't. There are no Scotland specific articles on the non-Christian faiths listed and the links just go to the general article. So, this is not a navigation aid, but just a very incomplete list of religions in Scotland. If we completed it, it would be unmanagable as a template. A link from the articles this template is on to the article Religion in Scotland would achieve everything this template does without POV decisions as to what to include. Delete (recreate if Scotland specific articles on the major faiths appear later) --Doc ask? 10:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: At least seven of those article links are to specific Scottish churches. If anything the fact that the non-christian links are not specific simply means they need articles created at some point. It's got a strong Christian bias for the Scotland-specific articles, but that bias reflects religion in Scotland too. Thanks/wangi 10:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But tell me what use it is? Why is this preferable to a category? I agree that non-Christian Scottish articles would be desirable, but there are none as of now. Why is it useful to be able to navigate from the Church of Scotland article, to a general article on Budhism - with no explanation as to its significance to Scotland? I've no objections to this being recreated as a 'Christian denominations in Scotland' template - and then perhaps later recreated as 'Religion in Scotland' when we have articles on various faiths. But as it stands now tis template has no utility and is just plain clutter. --Doc ask? 10:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found Category:Religion in Scotland - I think it suffices for now. --Doc ask? 13:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mainarticles[edit]

Template not used. Superseded by {{main}}. CG 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment - redirected. Dan100 (Talk) 16:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supercbbox[edit]

Delete: It's unnecessary to have a infobox for every little thing. This template just contains information that can all easily be covered in the lead section. Also, it lists the title both on top and then again in Statistics for no apparent reason. And it's only used on a handful of articles, hardly filled-out in some of them (like Alias (comics)). All in all, it's not very helpful and rather chunky. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Endspoiler[edit]

Unnecessary clutter; not particularly useful. — Dan | talk 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Behave[edit]

Ugly; puerile; redundant with the test templates. — Dan | talk 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If {{test}} is inappropriate, then nothing needs to be said at all. If it is the clear case of an honest mistake, the article can be reverted without further comment. If the same user does the same sort of thing more than once or twice, then he or she has moved on into vandalism. We all started here as newbies at one point or another; we didn't all go around messing up articles at random. Kafziel 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{test} is appropriate when the vandal/newbie made a test. It if was clearly simple vandalism ("Tom loves Sally" kind of thing), then it means nothing to them. I don't know if you've ever been on RC Patrol, but they don't understand it. I've even been asked what it meant. Izehar (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I don't care anymore. I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote.
  • Keep the redesigned version. Greatly improved, just about all the problems I had with the box are fixed now. Even the tone is better: stern, yet friendly. Good job, Ashibaka. -Silence 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But on the other hand, now that the "behave" catchphrase has been completely removed from the template (thank god), the template's name doesn't really having anything to do with its content, and may actually counteract the efforts of those who use it (i.e. a vandal is calmed down by the text, but then sees that the template is called "behave" and gets annoyed at the condescending word). So, I'm switching back to Delete, but move the current template to a new, more fitting name, since I actually like it and it will probably be quite useful to vandal-greeters. -Silence 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your excellent improvements have been reverted, so my above comments (after the first one, which still very much applies) are moot regarding the template. As such, strong delete; template will dramatically increase, rather than decrease, the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia. -Silence 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'changes' were rubbish. They completely misunderstood the whole point of the template and undermined its effectiveness. As to the suggestion that it would increase the amount of vandalism, obviously you don't spend your time dealing with vandalism. If you did you'd realise how nonsensical the claim is. It is specifically targeted at a type of lightweight vandalism and is designed in those cases to say "very funny, but please don't." Where it has been used in those cases it has worked. It is not intended to be used for real heavy vandalism. You don't seem to understand the different types of vandalism and the different tones that need to be used in dealing with them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeboxint[edit]

I've been in a bit of a revert war on Interstate 76 (east) about this template (see [3] for its use). I have taken it here as suggested on IRC:

<DavidGerard> KILL IT WITH A STICK. <DavidGerard> that one should go to TFD as a complete eyesore.

I have created an alternate template, currently on Interstate 76 (east) (and on Talk:Interstate 76 (east) if it's reverted again), that includes much of the information with less space, and does not include the huge junction box (which only duplicates information in the exit list further down in the article). A long Interstate can be split into multiple articles like Interstate 80 in New Jersey to keep the size of the article, including the exit list, manageable. --SPUI (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having twelve articles for I-80 is a very bad idea indeed, as I-80 spans CA, NV, UT, WY, NE, IA, IL, IL, OH, PA, NJ, and NY. When this fragmentation idea is extended to all inter-state interstates, there would be an explosion of little snippets that have no cohesion. The whole point of focusing on the inter-state identity of an interstate (especially the two-digit ones) is to show the regional or national interconnectivity of that road. The purpose of an interstate is to connect traffic flow without regard to the rather arbitrary/antiquated/historically-accidental state lines (or county lines). The purpose of an article for an interstate should be to focus on this national/regional aspect of interstates, not on some local's love-romance with how I-80 in the NYC suburbs in NJ is truly the most special and emotionally dear thing in some fan's life or whether the 17 mile stretch of I-29 in North Dakota was first in the nation to test the such-and-such road experimental pavement. The interstate articles should be focused on the user of that interstate to accomplish a traversal of that interstate (e.g., route planning of which that interstate is merely a portion of the route), not for heaping on some local's praise of his/her section. Sectionalism of interstates should be at best eradicated and at worst de-emphasized. Use of the interstate should be emphasized in the article for that interstate. — optikos 02:56 18 December 2005
    • Furthermore, if such a fragmentation of an interstate article would be pursued, be prepared for someone from Chicagoland to request that the I-80 freeway has an entirely different personality & word-name & toll-payment & governmental ownership than the I-294/I-80 concurrency, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name & governmental ownership than the I-80/I-94 concurrent freeway, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-90 concurrent toll-road, but I-94 (the Dan Ryan) has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-94 concurrency. Be prepared to shatter I-80 into those tiny little articles too. This is further proof that shattering an interstate article into how the locals romance it is unwise, because it is a slippery slope that might have no end. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
      I recommend a state getting its own article if and only if it has the most information, and the article is deemed too big. (probably based on the wikipedia maximum recommended article length. If it's still too big after one is split, then the next biggest should be split, and so on.) I am against any further fragmentation; however, the toll roads themselves and so forth get their own, even if they are only part of an Interstate in that state. Ex: New York State Thruway, New Jersey Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike. Splitting every Interstate article into every state would be insane. --Chris 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or fork/split into a "slimmer, trimmer" version. I agree fields are underused in current template, but there really is no happy medium between listing every intersection (I really don't want to do that) and listing bigger junctions (which is what the junction box is there for) except a table. Tables in the current template look more concise. I can do without "Browse State Highways". This particular template wielded properly isn't an eyesore. --Rob 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why we need to list any intersections in the infobox. This information is already in text in the route description and in a table in the exit list; scrolling through the exit list makes it easy to find Interstate junctions (as they're shown with shields). --SPUI (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea of an infobox isn't to contain unique information. Most city infoboxes, for example, contain population and other info that is in the body of the article. The idea is create a concise overview of the interstate highway for people who just want the information quickly. The suggested replacement only contains the endpoints, the establishment date, and the useless links to the adjacent state highways in numerical order. I wouldn't mind if the state highways part were deleted from the template but the rest of routeboxint is fine. Listing the Interstate junctions provides a first level look at the important junctions. The detailed intersection tables are fine, but are a lot to go through for a quick scan. It will be even more cumbersome if all of the intersections, Interstate and state highway, for a coast-to-coast Interstate go onto the main page, or if it is necessary to go to a page for each state to see the Interstate junctions. --Beirne 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all as the template's creator I'm wondering why I wasn't informed of it's TFD. To continue, it has been accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways as well as other roadgeeks. The templates look good and can be shrunken if needed. Interstate 5, Interstate 90, etc. There is much more information packed into this template than in the othertemplate proposed at Talk:Interstate 76 (east). Also, the browse state highways should stay because it is needed for the CA, WA, KY, NH, TX, OH, PA, NJ Interstates so their routeboxes can connect with the individual state routeboxes/ other templates (Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways explains why) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shrink the damn thing if you don't kill it with a stick. It was three screens long on my laptop - David Gerard 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? Is page length a fossil fuel that must be conserved lest we run out? optikos 14:35 18 December 2005
      No, but the point of an infobox is to briefly list some standard important information. --Chris 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but shrink it. It's too wide, and far too long. Something I just recently noticed is the color scheme is sort of ugly. As for the SPUI one, it first of all must be discussed someplace other than here and there. My biggest problem is that any Interstate that goes through three states will be 1/2 taken up by those stupid state highway browsers, which I already hate. I know some of the highway guys like them, but I'd be interested to see what the rest of the Wikipedians think about them. Other than that, I don't have too much of a problem with SPUI's infobox. Maybe just add a bit here or there. However, many articles already use the old one. (In the event of any sort of change, all Routeboxint info that will be lost should be moved to the body of the article.) So therefore, I'm just in favor of cutting down on Template:Routeboxint by doing the following (this should cut it down to a quarter of the original on something like Interstate 84 (east)):
    • Perhaps lower the width.
    • Make interstate junctions much smaller, by limiting the number of junctions (perhaps 5 or so), and by cutting out the milepost column, but perhaps keeping a state abbreviation.
    • Throw away the legend; that sort of detail will be unnecessary in a brief list. A similar legend may be used to color-code the full list in the body of the article.
    • Kill the browse state highways. Perhaps the States Traversed section should link to List of New York state highways or whatever.
    • Remove the seperate east and west terminii sections. Perhaps the brief junction list should include the first, last, and 3 most major in between.

--Chris 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with removing Browse State Highways is that someone on WA-4 can get to I-5... but then how do they get to WA-6? We could split the legend off to a subpage... and I'm not attached to terminii... width needs to be fixed too. If we limit the junctions on the primary interstates to just Primary Interstates, things will be better (we could even cut down more on Interstate 90.) I'll fix Interstate 5 so it does this. If every page had an exit list, I would say throw away the junctions section- but not every page does, so I'm not saying it. But yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the state highway box issue, people may make it up to I-5, but I wonder how many people browsing through Washington state highways make it up to I-90? I would suspect that most give up long before that, because there isn't any useful relation between adjacently numbered highways. (And yes, I know north-south, east-west, etc. but the schemes tend to conflict in various ways so it still doesn't work out.) I don't think it makes sense for the projects of states like WA or CA either, although I know that those are different projects out of the scope of this one. The legend probably needs to be there to help interpret the colors if we are going to use them, otherwise we should probably just skip the color-coding altogether because it is going to be too mysterious for most people. I think the terminii are exactly the sort of meaningful pieces of information that should be in the routebox. The provide a visual sense of length, direction, and the route. Every page should have a junction list since a bulleted list is part of the Interstate Project guidelines, but the box provides a convenient overview. Being an overview, though, listing the primaries should be fine and a good compromise. --Beirne 12:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken on the WA-4, I-5, WA-6 thing, but regardless of what each state does, that doesn't mean they need to be in the infobox. (I'm giving up on eliminating them altogether, in favor of compromise.) The legend should at the very least be split off someplace else, but it wouldn't be necessary at all if the junctions list were to be turned into just a brief lists of other interstates it Interchanges with. (as opposed to a list of interchanges with other Interstates; yes there is a difference) If an individual interstate article wishes to use a similar color scheme on it's body interchange list, then obviously the legend can either be in or be linked to in the body. Seperately listing the terminii is uneccsary if the brief junction list is in order. --Chris 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can't list every single city that for example Interstate 5 goes through. I've changed the routebox on I-5 to be smaller... does it look better? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally still think there is too many cities there. Interstate 5#Major cities along the route can still contain as many as the authors want. I'd say the junction list is good, but is it necessary in the north and south to say anything beyond Canada border and Mexico border? --Chris 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoot. Repeatedly. Big, ugly, and too hard to maintain. --Carnildo 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patcat88 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to express accuracy Expand the ability to describe east-west/north-south designation on a per-section basis (in one article). Expand the ability to describe established-date on a per-section basis. Neither of these two fields apply to the entire interstate from terminus to terminus for all interstates. Keep the template as is or expand it as I have indicated below. Either way deploy it fully to every interstate without exception. Move factual information that is currently in prose to the template-table's contents to reduce the impact of my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication in the prose of the article. Make all interstate articles have the same look-and-feel, which also will dilute my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • In any interstate template that has an established-date field, what is that date: 1) the date that the oldest section of that roadway was built to interstate specifications opened (even under a different name that was later renamed an interstate, as is common nowadays to build an interstate named as a state-road or US highway then upon completion of the entire route, e.g., I-68 was named US48 for years until the day of its completion at its eastern terminus, I-469 was named Indiana SR469 for years until completion of its northern terminus)? 2) the date that that roadway was first named I-suchandsuch even if it existed twenty years prior to that as a famous freeway? 3) the date that the most recent section of it opened (e.g., it will be misleading to say that I-69 was established in 1967 referring to the oldest part of the Indiana section when it is completed all the way to Mexico one of these next few decades) — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • In any interstate template that has a direction field, the direction often does not apply to the entire length of that interstate. Take I-69 for example. The Indiana section that I lived near as a child is signed as a north-south interstate as one would expect from the odd final digit, but the Michigan section "north" of Lansing is signed as east-west almost as though I-69 is some variation of I-96 (which is what it feels like when driving around Lansing). Conversely, many of the supposedly east-west interstates run either nearly north-south or due north-south in Chicagoland, but are signed as east-west. This leads to much confusion in the Chicagoland area that would be very nice to succintly disclose in a table for I-94 and I-90. Similarly, when driving in a new-to-me metropolitan area, I would love to have any reference Wiki or Rand McNally or otherwise that discloses to me ahead of time which sections/exits of I-465 in Indy or I-410 in San Antonio are signed east-west and which are signed north-south. In all of these cases, having an explicit directionality of signage in the template on a section-by-section basis would be valuable information that is not easily accessible anywhere else other than going the wrong way on the road and then turning around once one figures how the local Dept of Transportion decided to creatively sign this interstate. What would be absolutely perfect would be directionality of signage (e.g., N-S versus E-W) sitting right next to degrees from North from the compass between two exits point-to-point, such as for the Dan Ryan in Chicago: E-W/0°-180°; or for I-69 east of Lansing: E-W/89°-271°. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • Move more factual prose to these template tables, so that information does not get buried in some fan's touting of the verbose praise of how this section is named the Whosywhatsit Memorial Expressway. I have recently visited every interstate article. I have noticed way too much variance from article to article. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
      Let me make sure I understand. Do you wish to make it even bigger than it already is?? (You make some valid points, although I personally disagree with some of it; but regardless of that, it is way too much to put in an infobox.) --Chris 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a rather useful summary of an interstate highway. That being said, it is way too big. How about placing the legend on a separate page (perhaps a subpage of the WikiProject), and linking to it? And something needs to be done about the "browse state highways" section -- it's attracted way too much criticism. Scott5114 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a great summary, and I've been wondering why they've been dissapearing. I utilised the core of it for Template:UK motorway routebox and would be mortified if that was TFD'd. Erath 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I suggest some bits be split into different templates. Lots of the things in this don't belong in an infobox, but are still useful in template form. --Golbez 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Extremely useful information, they should be kept. BTW I also agree with subpages on long Interstates (and other long multi-state highways) when pages become too long. CrazyC83 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, a quick vote count makes it seem like those who wish to completely delete it are in a small minority, but the idea of shrinking it seems popular. Why not discuss shrinking it on Template talk:Routeboxint? (I and perhaps others have advocated removing some things in discussions there since way before it was put on TFD.) --Chris 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for frak sake. This and templates like it are both easy to navigate and are being maintained by a large and dedicated group of users. There is no basis for deletion here except one user's anger over a revert war.Gateman1997 01:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks extremely useful, especially on the Interstate 355 article. --JohnDBuell 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I admit of some confusion, it seems like part of this discussion is about what granularity the interstate articles should have? I'd like to think that my keep vote for this template does not imply any particular opinion about that question. I don't think that size of a box is a reason to kill it. There are other large boxes. The question should revolve around whether it is a useful box or not. As used in the articles I saw, it is, therefore keep. Shrink it? Sure, if the info can be presented... but keep. ++Lar 05:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler top and Template:Spoiler bottom[edit]

Unlike {{spoiler2}} and {{spoiler-red}}, these used to have a distinct purpose, but they've been obsolesced by the revival and widespread use of {{endspoiler}}. The javascript mentioned on Template talk:Spoiler top doesn't work anymore, but if anyone's really interested, I can fix it for the standard {{spoiler}}/{{spoiler-about}}/{{spoiler-other}}/{{solution}} - {{endspoiler}} series. —Cryptic (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maintained[edit]

  • Delete: Copying my reasoning from the Pump: In effect, the template seems to be saying The following users are watching this page. Please clear any changes with them first. I'd content that the less experienced the editor who reads the template, the more likely they are to interpret it that way. Conversely, more experienced editors are likely to respond with a "So what?" I'd really like to have the purpose of the template explained clearly. Casual vandals are unlikely to read talk pages. The listed users will have the article on their watchlists and will spot and fix vandalism just as quickly without the template. Non-vandals who want to make good-faith edits should not have to refer (or defer) to self-styled experts who, thanks to their watchlists, will soon see any changes anyway.. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Comment: Rather than this knee-jerk reaction to delete, you could have suggested an alternate wording that you thought would not communicate what you feel is a message of "ownership". Instead, you chose not to participate in any discussion and move directly to delete. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:22
  • Keep: There should be enough reasons in the last few days to have a necessity for these kind of persons thus implementing something like this in articles at least to make vandals that aren't caught by RC Patrols and else be stopped by this method. Lincher 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. That is NOT the intention of this template at all, and I am really getting tired of explaining this for people who can't bother themselves to read any of the past discussion. The template is acting as a contact list of people who have identified themselves as either knowing the content of the article or knowing its sources. It is for any reader who wants to confirm the facts in an article, or confirm its sources. It has nothing to do with "ownership" of this article, so please stop pushing this ridiculous apocalyptic notion. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:14
    • Replying to these three comments. A) I have not used the word "ownership"; please respond to the stated reasons for listing here rather than continuing a previous argument of which I was not part. B) I have not suggested an alternate wording because I believe that there is no need for any such template. and C) Please explain how the template is going to be any more effective against vandalism than having the same group of users add the article to their watchlist. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were not part of any discussion. You moved directly to delete the template within the very same message that you misrepresented the intention of the template. That has been your only part in the discussion, "I don't like it, so I will move to delete it." It is NOT the intention of this template to be "effective against vandalism". As I have already stated 3 times on different pages (which I'm assuming you've read...), the intention of this template is to do exactly what it says: let the readers know that there are people watching it for vandalism, maintaining it, and who can be contacted regarding any factuality/verifiability concerns the readers have. As I have also repeatedly stated, people tend to check their email more than their watchlist. So, having a direct link to email a useful contact on an article is very useful for the reader. I have already gotten emails from readers and new users verifying with me that arcticles' content is accurate, so it is already working exactly as I had intended. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:37
        • Articles have talk pages were such concerns can be raised in full view of all those with an interest in the article. Can you not at least concede that moving this discussion to the talk pages of individual users is open to potential abuse. I raised the vandalism question because it was part of one of the keep votes. You have raised it again yourself just now ("there are people watching it for vandalism"). Finally, please stop the bolded uppercase shouting, which does nothing to further your arguments. BTW, I check my watchlist far more often than I check my e-mails. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not shouting, it is concerned emphasis. Please stop misrepresenting this template on people's talk pages to get them to vote in your favor, calling this template "the latest item of worship." — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:56
  • Speedy Keep - Can this thing be ended as soon as possible so the annoying TfD text can go away from the pages the template is used on? Thanks. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 13:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifications: This template provides direct contact to email someone, something with which all readers are familiar, rather than assuming that all readers will know what the "history" tab is for, how to check for significant contributors who thus might know something about the article (ie: looking for non-minor, non-bot, significant edits). Besides the contact, one of the main points is to let readers know that the page is being maintained by people, that it is being watched for vandalism, and that some people will hold themselves accountable for its contents. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
  • Also note, anyone can remove anyone from the template's list of users, if those users become inactive, since the point is to provide a list of contacts and a list of people who are volunteering their time to protect the article against vandalism and are knowledgeable about its facts/sources. The point is not to provide a list of "contributors". If you feel the template is sending the wrong message, please suggest alternate wordings. This is more productive than typing 7 letters.. (ie "Delete"). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
  • Keep. Filiocht is quite right—experienced editors (and even not-so-experienced ones) will happily ignore the template. But it is inteneded primarily to benefit the casual reader, who has no idea how Wikipedia works or how he might go about questioning the veracity of a statement. An obvious "email this person if you have questions" box is quite useful in such cases. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template cruft - the casual reader will figure out, by looking at all the buttons above (That's what I did when I was one). --Gurubrahma 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are assuming that all readers will understand the system as easily/quickly as you claim to have. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Keep. Let's see it in action for a bit, give it a chance to improve, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Use it. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Best new idea in a long time. Creating a visable presence on an article is a way to make soft-tiers of users (not unlike the 3-tiers of "anon->user->admin", but on a per-article basis, and "soft-tier") which will add stability and discourage the natural processes of entropy. It's the closest thing to a traditional encyclopedia "signed article" but maintaining the openess of Wikipedia. It certainly does not over-ride the Wikipedia Constitutional rules about "ownership". --Stbalbach 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We must keep the cabal as secret. --Peter McConaughey 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wording on the template may need to be altered so that it can't be misinterpreted as 'ownership' of an article, but overall its a good idea. Agnte 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. —Locke Cole 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources and references should be provided in the article itself. The entire idea of Wikipedia is to judge facts and contributions, not contributors. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the article should have sources. We're not trying to judge contributors. Even if it lists sources, it can still be vandalized, and readers can still have questions about ambiguities or other things related to the topic. That is why it is important to show that people are watching the content, can be contacted regarding any questions, and do hold themselves accountable for the content. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 19:44
      • If the article is unclear or incomplete, you make it more clear and you complete it. The only way this template would be of any help is if the template said, "The following persons have volunteered to clarify and expand the article if it seems unclear or incomplete. Feel free to share your concerns with them." But then again, isn't that the purpose of a talk page in the first place? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've used this to mark pages that I'm interested in and know a fair bit about, to indicate that I can probably answer or address whatever questions or concerns people might have. Perhaps it should be reworded to say something like "If you have questions about this article or its sources, the following users may be able to help: Example (talk · contribs · email), misterhand43 (talk · contribs · email), Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · email)." Or something like that—the point being to list helpful contacts that someone may not otherwise find, not to indicate any measure of ownership or control. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the wording as per this suggestion. Agnte 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reword as per Mirv, to clarify that no ownership is implied. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Might need some improvement to remove any implication of article "ownership" but I like this template and the ideas behind it. Let's give it a chance to develop. android79 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good idea. But I agree with android79.algumacoisaqq 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've always thought this feature should be built in to the Mediawiki software. I'm glad I found it.
  • Strong keep, per everybody else. Perhaps needs tweaking to alleviate Android's concerns, but otherwise good.--Sean|Black 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Matt Crypto 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No matter how the message is worded, it's going to smack of asserting ownership over an article and discourage others from contributing. Questions about an article should be made on the article's talk page, not directly to the maintainers. —Psychonaut 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite the guideline/policy that suggests the statement you just made. I (and I'm sure others) have been contacted multiple times about different articles. The sole purpose isn't simply to act as contact points, though, and your statement that the wording cannot be fixed is baseless. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 23:28
      • The guideline about posting questions and comments on the article talk page is called "common sense". As a collaborative encyclopedia, a reader is far more likely to get a useful response if he posts a public message rather than a private one. To suggest that a reader do otherwise also implies that the editors named on the template have more authority over the article than other editors. —Psychonaut 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about the current form of the message? There is no way that your original complaint is true now. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 20:01
  • Keep. Jacoplane 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Use of the template subtly implies ownership, even if it is not explicitly worded as such. Sources should be in the body of the article. There should never be a need to contact anyone to verify information; the article should stand on its own. Use of this template will encourage people to not make self-standing articles. Kwertii 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • You are stating a lot of "shoulds", which would be fine, except Wikipedia currently doesn't exist in a perfect state. I am simply acknowledging that, whereas you are hindering its development. An article can be filled with sources, but a reader still has no reason to trust its contents, since the article can easily be vandalized. This template lets them have some trust in the article, or at least contact someone who can verify information presented in the article, information which may not be laid out in any sources (for example, if the article was vandalized). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 00:10
  • Possibly reword, but Keep. On the other hand, I'd like clear criteria for its use: it ought to be clear that multiple individuals can place it on the same talk page, and that it shouldn't be placed on highly controversial articles, where the issue of implied "ownership" could be much more serious. For example, I'd be very suspicious of the motives of someone who unilaterally claimed to be "maintaining" Libertarianism or Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a great idea and long overdue. If you don't like the wording in the template, then build a consensus for changing it. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Jmabel about avoiding it on controversial topics, but its use on most articles is undoubtedly a good idea. Brisvegas 09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Kwertii. Also, any question someone might ask these editors is far better placed on the talk page, where everbody can see it (and profit from the answer). The argument that this is mostly to help newcomers who aren't familiar with Wiki isn't convincing to me: The template is supposed to go on the talk page, right? So if a newcomer figures out how to read the talk page, I'm sure they will figure out how to post their question there. Plus, I personally too check my watchlist far more often then my e-mails. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple benefits of this template. You have only addressed one of those, ignoring the rest. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete readers do not want to see the nicknames of the editors - it totally ruins the image of the "serious encyclopaedia". Izehar (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what is this claim based? Nobody has to edit the article to add their name to the list of knowledgeable people. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Keep this template might need some minor word revisions, but the idea behind it is good, and its meant mainly to show who knows the most about the article. Magicmonster 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think I like the idea behind this. It gives people an idea of who to ask if they need help working on an article, and moreover lets people know who to turn to if they encounter something that they don't think should be there.

--Vortex 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Ok, first, I see very little advantage to it compared to the history tab and watchlists from active editors. However, I think that it exposes us to some dangers. First, it implies an expert status to some editors, whether that is the intent or not. Second, it suggests some form of ownership of an article, that an article is a particular editor's playground or fenced in yard, although that is probably not the intent of the creator. Finally, if we use the template strictly as the author does intend, to indicate an emergency contact number, as it were, on the vandal playgrounds, there would be a creeping suggestion that all articles need such angels, such protectors, and such ministers and advocates. So, I see three reasons why this template does "harm" and no distinct harm that it cures. Rather than saying, "Please don't use this template," I have to say delete, because I think we would need to demonstrate an acute need and prove that this template is a wholly satisfactory curing of that need before we should willingly face the three dangers I list above. Geogre 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of advantages to it. For one, if there's a sign that says someone is watching over the article, it means two things: One is that either a vandal's desire to vandalize could be deterred, or quickly reverted. The other is that a more civilized user wishing to contribute to or correct an article can do so in the knowledge that there's at least one person other himself concerned enough with the topic to wish to maintain it, and can do so without worry. So, it seems to me that whatever objections you have to the template pale in comparison to how mcuh good this template could do. --Cjmarsicano 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Following your logic, vandals will then eagerly vandalize pages without the notice, because they think no one is watching them. Maybe we need a general notice on all pages stating that users are watching every page. The current template which names names and excludes other users has too many negative effects, and too few positive ones. -- Rmrfstar 02:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not to deter vandals. The point is to let readers know we are protecting the article against vandals. 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched, so it will be fairly easy for vandals to find unwatched pages. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:13
  • Delete - remind me what is the point of the talk page again... If someone has a question regarding an article then that can be left on the article's talk page. Moving this flow of information off to user talk pages sounds counter-ituitive to me and only serves to setup cliques. Thanks/wangi 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
  • Delete useless: duplicates already existing functionality (history/talk).  Grue  17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have only addressed one of its benefits. There are several, and they combine to make this template better than any individual other item. That's why it is necessary. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
  • Strong Keep Neutral This is extremely helpful when you have a question to ask about some statement made in an article, but nobody is reading the Talk page anymore. Remember, this is a huge encyclopedia, and people might miss important edits on their watchlist. It's totally harmless and does not claim ownership over anything. Ashibaka tock 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template appears to have been made just a few days ago, on the 13th of December 2005. It adds articles to the Maintained articles category, also created around the same time. I note that there appear to be at least 141 articles which are now in that category. While I did not check each one, I did check a few, and each has the template, and I saw at least 5 different editors listed as a contact for that article, that is, that multiple editors chose to add the template. I therefore conclude that this template serves a need, and is already being adopted and has the potential to be in widespread use. Note also that as other editors have commented, non wikipedians may not be familiar with the mechanics of looking up article history to determine who a good contact person might be. I do think that refinement of the wording to clarify that it's a person that wants to be helpful, not an "owner", that is being listed, might still be in order (although I note people have already been working on it), but that is not an argument for Delete. NB, I am inclusionist. ++Lar 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, attempts at ownership of articles are a direct and egtregious violation of Wikiquette. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Please do not voice your disapproval of the template by deleting it from talk pages. See Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature. --Stbalbach 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll be needing to point me to the part of this template that claims ownership over articles. —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you've violated guidelines to correct what you believe are "violations of guidelines". Interesting... — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 08:27
    • Ok, why do you say that's POINT instead of BOLD? After all, we're to be bold in editing. Now, what if there is a topic of controversy. I'm working on, let's say, Oroonoko, and someone has a contrary point of view. That person slaps on the Maintained template and proclaims herself the patroller of Oroonoko. I can't remove it? I can't say, "This person doesn't actually understand Aphra Behn and certainly doesn't understand this novel?" Instead, I (if I were less known to the community) would be the presumed intruder. I would have to justify to everyone around that I do know the subject, that I am a scholar of Restoration and Augustan literature? All because someone with a controversial view slapped on a template? We don't have to wait for hypothetical harms: these comments show that it is already occurring. Second case: someone puts the maintained template on Oroonoko and lists me. I don't want to be contacted. I'll fix the article any time people mess it up, but I don't want to chat with every college freshman assigned the novel in a class who wants me to write his paper for him. I don't want the members of the Aphra Behn Society asking me my real name so that they can chat with me or bother me at the next conference. Too bad, eh? I either have to be a second rate voice on the article, or I have to be Mr. Sociable, and all because this template says so? Geogre 13:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a guideline for that to the template's talk page. See how productive work is accomplished? If you think that guideline is not good enough, please, suggest another! This is much more productive than just assuming that the template will only be placed on controversial articles and that it therefore should not exist. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 14:29
    • How about an indication that there must be consensus on a talk page for the list of patrollers before the template can be used? That way, if I see that I am listed, I have to agree to it, and if I see that someone with a fancy for an article but not expertise has become annointed, I can object. At least that would forestall this set of harms. It doesn't change my view, however. I think we have more templates than users can even find, much less use, and I think this one accomplishes few benefits while exposing us to damage. However, a requirement of consensus would prevent this being used as a weapon in an RFC or its being used to promote a controversialist's campaign. Geogre 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template encourages people to be more responsible for certain articles and also gives some increased sense of verification to those articles that are more likely to be accurate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not totally sold on this as a great idea, but like many above I think it's worth continuing the experiment for a while. I certainly wish users would stop --pending the outcome of consensus-seeking discussions such as this-- the petulant deletions of these templates where they have been used. It's really contemptuous. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have not used this template myself; it being brand new, most editors presumably have never heard of it. But it seems like a possibly useful concept, one that I can imagine using myself. Allowing editors to volunteer themselves as resources for particular pages might often be useful; and is not the same as imposing a requirement to get permission for edits. Give it a chance! If this is around and non-productive for six months, renominate it. But don't kill the idea after a week. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally liked the idea of using this template, but I see now that I was only giving in to satisfy my feelings of ownership of a few articles. Nevermind that. There are very few good effects of this template. Posting a comment on a talk page doesn't need to be any easier and discussion of an article should be kept on Wikipedia for everyone to read, for obvious reasons. Also, as was said above, the articles should be completely (within Wikipedia) stand-alone, such a template encourages and expresses the idea that an article can be confusing, or incomplete etc. and that a reader can email a contributor if they have any questions. -- Rmrfstar 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have ignored all the benefits of the template. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete as gross policy violation - connotes ownership of the article, however it may have been intended. I've kludged onto it that it does not connote such, but it still needs to die - David Gerard 19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Current version rates a neutral - I'm still not sure it's a good idea at all, but it doesn't make me want to shoot it - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nonsenseible. You said yourself that the wording just needs to be changed. But, instead, you'd rather delete it? Without even giving it a chance? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 19:27
  • Delete. However sugarcoated the words, it is a disinvitation to those not in the club to edit the article. In order to view the template, the user must navigate to the talk page anyway--interested editors can watch the talk page, which is how I've gotten "in touch" with the editors of specific articles in the past. Whatever marginal benefit emailing individual users about article content has (and since when was that such a great idea?) it is countered by putting this perimeter around articles. Note: this disinvitation is inherent in the very idea of making a list of editors, so for me it's not a matter of "fixing the wording". Demi T/C 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a list of editors. Nobody needs to add a single word to the article to be able to add themselves to the template. It is only recommended that they have knowledge of the contents, for the template to be useful, since that is the point of the template: to be useful to readers. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:42
  • Neutral although I respect the reasoning behind the deletion votes, some template like this may be suitable for topics where popular understanding and serious scholarship may be at odds. Such articles may have unsuitably long talk pages. Well intentioned readers sometimes insert information in the belief that some omission is an oversight (for example, by adding "January 6" to [[Joan of Arc|Joan of Arc's] birthdate). Sometimes a notion gains a popular following even though the academic community rejects it unanimously. See scalping. The problem with this template is its potential for abuse by partisan editors. Durova 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we needed a template like this. QQ 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Filiocht had it right all the way up there, and Geogre makes some good points too. "Active monitors" ought to be obvious from the talk page anyway, and will have it on their watchlist. If people want to know about sources or anything else, they can leave a query on the talk page. The template doesn't need tweaking, it needs to be disposed of. --ajn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several, and they combine to make it better than any one thing currently offerred. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete - Geogre has very persuasively demonstrated the potential problems that could arise with this template. Worldtraveller 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • His criticisms were of an older version of the template. Can you please look at the new version??? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Of course there can be problems, but that's why there are guidelines, which the community can add to. Why trash the whole thing when several people obviously think it useful? Please assume good faith, I am in no way trying to take ownership of an article. Have you seen the new version of the template? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 02:42
      • It is possible to assume that your every intention is aboveboard, forthright, well-meaning, and completely without guile or malice, while still believing that you are wrong. Nothing about the former precludes the latter. Nothing about the latter indicates an abandonment of the former. Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has the potential to create more problems than it solves. Zocky 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you won't even give it chance? You'd rather delete it for its "potential problems", than try to fix those problems? They call this a "discussion" at the top of the page. It really is a joke. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 05:24
  • Delete - no benefit - articles should stand on their own - if they need sources or clarification, add them, don't list yourself as a "maintainer"(i.e. according to FOLDOC: "The person responsible for coordinating changes"); discussion about articles should be publically viewable on the wiki, not in private, non-archived, hidden discussion via email. This is a basic violation of the transparency of Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please be aware that the TfD notice for this template has been removed, subtly hidden in "noinclude" tags (so it will appear to people checking it directly that it has the notice, but will fail in it's intended purpose of publicizing the discussion) and made effectivly unreadable (via a application of "small" tags to the already very small text) multiple times. (I only reverted the "small" trick just now; otherwise, it has been in place the whole time this TfD has been running - if that's not abuse of the process, I'm not sure what it is.) Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 3, part 2. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Im not defending the use of small fonts in this case and had no part in it, but small fonts are used all over Wikipedia in official and unofficial capacity, to say it was "hidden" and made unreadable is an inaccurate portrayal.--Stbalbach 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making it small was just an attempt to make it less annoying, since others were complaining. Maybe the TFD folks could bother to improve the notice's appearance. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:57
      • What I objected to was putting <small> tags around text which had the "font-size:xx-small;" style applied to it(see {{tfd}}). That's shrinking the text twice - making it look
        like this!
         Is that readable? Is that a appropriate "notice" for an ongoing discussion? While <small> tags are widely used, double application of them is not. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template is a novel idea. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete History/talk/watchlist/community collaboration pages is enough IMHO. Assuming that "more people read their email than the watchlists" is wrong in my case at least --- when I get an email from the Wikipedia, I will usually perceive this as a "push" attempt to make me deal with some WP issues when I have my daytime activities pressure on me for doing other things (yes, I know that I can autosort them all into a special folder). The watchlist is a "pull" interface, which I may prefer to use whenever I like. Also, the template usage can easily become stale and mislead others (making them think --- well, if it's maintained, I shouldn't bother reviewing the changes too hard)... I do see the benefits for some of the users as stated by them, but personally I feel the negative arguments outweigh them. For the active supporters of either delete or keep, please don't jump the decision and don't abuse the process (removing the TfD from pages/the small font trick/whatever). BACbKA 10:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several. They combine to make this template better than any one thing currently available. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
  • Delete, per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator was complaining about an older version of this template. Have you even looked at the changes that have been made? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
      • The nominator has followed the changes in wording and the attempts to disguise the TfD tag with interest and would still like to see this template deleted. The question of article ownership is not one I addressed, but there is clearly a degree of concern about this. I am more worried by the fact that this template will tend to remove content discussions from the public forum of article talk pages to the private forum of editors' e-mail inboxes. This is a very bad thing is wiki terms. I am further concerned by the assumption that anyone who votes to delete is not assuming good faith, with the hanging implication that they are acting in bad faith. I always get concerned when proponents of anything feel it necessary to question every single vote against them. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even with new wording, it still strongly conveys an assertion of ownership or, at the least, an assertion that some editors are more equal than others (with no guarantee, as they are self-appointed, that they are genuinely worth contacting regarding verification or sources). What if a POV warrior applies this tag? Tearlach 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are guidelines for that, and new guidelines can be created. The whole concept shouldn't be trashed on the basis of a "what if". — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:12
  • Delete - To find notable contributors look at the history instead. Connotates ownership/elitism. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How could it possibly connotate ownership when the template says: this does not connote any form of article ownership?? Did you even look at the template? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:14
      • Connotation is in the eye of the beholver. Just because it says that it does not have that connotation, doesn't mean that users won't interpret and act on the template in that way. Ripe for abuse, this template goes against wiki spirit and should be deleted IMO. BTW, don't assume bad faith. I looked at the template and carefully considered its possible uses. Finding frequent editors via history and article talk pages are more open. Use of this template will harm wikipedia IMO. I have had problems with people claiming that all edits need to be approved by themselves, and having this template available will increase/legitimize such behavior IMO. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole point of connotation is that it isn't a literal thing; that is, no amount of saying "this does not connote ownership" will prevent it from doing so. Demi T/C 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this does not imply ownership, merely that stated user is an expert in this field.  ALKIVAR™ 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And how do we know that's true? Tearlach 00:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll find out as soon as you ask the person a question about the subject. Please assume good faith on the part of the "expert". — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:11
        • Comment: reasonable anticipation of problems isn't a breach of good faith. Many Wikipedia fundamentals - such as Wikipedia:Cite sources and WP:NPOV - are built on the assumption that edits might be unreliable or biased. Design of any template should consider the possibility and consequences of its misuse, and this one is a gift to POV warriors and wannabe article owners. Tearlach 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It makes it look like ownership, goes against all that is wikipedia. -- Jbamb 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting idea, but ultimately useless and counter-productive in practice. Unintentionally establishes a "class hierarchy" within articles, whereby new editors are less important to the article than the old editors who self-listed themselves. Also, in the long run, these userlists will slowly grow out-of-date and cluttered by trivial entries over time, as editors drift away from articles or from Wikipedia altogether without bothering to update the dozens of lists they could have put themselves on in the past; as a result, when the exceedingly rare time comes when a list like this actually could prove useful, in theory, it probably won't prove useful in practice because the list won't accurately reflect who's watching the list as well as simply checking the recent History and Talk page entries surely will. Also, for well-populated articles like Jesus and George W. Bush, lists like this could easily grow to be pages and pages in length, and become even more useless due to obsolete entries. Simply not worth it. This sort of box is alien to the very idea of Wikipedia, and will ultimately cause more harm than good by establishing an artificial and arbitrary class division between editors working on an article. -Silence 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am moved by the concerns that this template implies ownership of articles, even though I realize that is not the idea behind it at all. I also think that it is slightly redundant with the history function where you can easily see who has been contributing what to the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per George. Raul654 17:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the good intentions of this template and realize that it's not implying ownership. That said, this template has too many disadvatages and not enough advantages to justify its use. I agree with comments made by Filocht and Geogre and also have a few concerns of my own. Who decides what users should be listed in the template? Who's job is it to maintain a "Maintained" template? Users regularly go on Wikibreak or stop editing certain articles, yet their names will be left on templates all across Wikipedia. What about users who turn out not to be especially knowledgeable or helpful on a certain article? Can other users remove their name from the template? How is a template on the talk page going to stop the casual vandal given that the vast majority never even look at the talk page? I agree with what's trying to be accomplished here, but this template doesn't seem like the best way to achieve that goal. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. Weak arguments all around on the anti-template side of this debate. In reality, there is no way that the template conveys ownership or original creation (the latter would be the focus of another template entirely). Therefore, let me modify and reinforce my vote to read: Very, very, very, super-strong KEEP as per everyone else that has seen fit to support this. --Cjmarsicano 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T/C 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. This template seems to me like treating wikipedia as some sort of "club". People shouldn't assert nor consider themselves as "maintainers" or any such artificial title, because that is a form of egotism and exclusion of others, direct or indirect. Andyluciano 00:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy, what are you smoking? Not sure what makes you think this will lead to what you claim - if I thought what you said was true, I wouldn't have voted for retention of the template.

Note: For most of the time this TfD has been in running, the notice on the template was effectively too small to read. It looked like this:

Can you read what this says?

Specifically, the tag was added 12:22, 14 December 2005, it was made unreadable 2 hours later (14:18, 14 December 2005), and remained that way for 5 days (until 06:25, 19 December 2005). When voting, or closing this discussion, please keep this in mind. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You've already made your complaint nice and clear. Enough people complained about this annoying TFD notice for someone to do something about it in this case. And yes, I can read that small text just fine. Are you suggesting that people wishing to delete the template somehow have worse vision than people wishing to keep the template? Or are you suggesting that this TFD has had fewer votes than most other TFD's? I would say that you are wrong in both cases. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 14:39


Template:Pittsburgh Universities[edit]

Delete: Cumbersome; Better served by Category:Universities and colleges in Pittsburgh 141.151.176.253 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:XD6[edit]

Experimental deletion is not an approved Wikipedia process, and implementation of it is not appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get rid of the ever increasing crap on WP, this is a GOOD IDEA (probably one of the best). I just found it, but now your telling me not to use it!! Weird!--Light current 23:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking of Wikipedia content is not an acceptable method of getting articles deleted. The CSD and AfD processes are the only methods approved by Wikipedia consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Nominated 2005-11-24–2005-12-01[edit]

Template: Philosophy topics aka "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide"[edit]

The majority of the vote was to merge the template into the Portal:Philosophy, but delete the template's tag from the rest of Wikipedia. Note that there were two identical templates, each with the same title, differing mainly in the tag name (though the contents did fluctuate also). For the vote on the duplicate template "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" (an exact duplicate), see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Two duplicate Philosophy Templates: Conflict over which tag name to keep Go for it! 03
07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and use it on the portal in addition - (BTW, I withdraw my nomination to delete). Infinity0 and I have worked on this thing for weeks! Go for it! 06:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would be absurd; since the portal contains the cats list, this template is overkill, and simply confuse users. Delete this template and stick to the cats list. Banno 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why include a list of philosophical links on a page that contains a list of philosophical links? Can someone explain the appeal of this doubling-up to me? Banno 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per Pjacobi. This template is far too large to be useful as a navigational aid and belongs rather in a portal. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:58:49Z
  • Delete. Not useful, and isn't a quick guide to overview articles. —thames 05:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There are already several navigation features built in to the Wiki. The most obvious one is the "See also" section of each article. Combined with the Cats page, these two should be sufficient, provided they are done properly. So it is incumbent on editors that they ensure the cats and "see also" are correct and usable. In that regard this template is a distraction. It is also almost unreadable, and biased in a way that the cats will not be. And it is too large - on some philosophy articles, half the page will consist of this template. Banno 09:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a Merge can be arranged. User:Go for it! and User:Infinity0 brought this on themselves by their inability to compromise, but a philosophy template is clearly useful. It should be named "Template:Philosophy", and the existing templates should Merge. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not that useful. The "See also" for each article would be far preferable. Banno

Part of the discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Two duplicate Philosophy Templates: Conflict over which tag name to keep. -Splashtalk 02:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vutprotected[edit]

Un-needed, ugly extra template for user pages. Should be speedied.Lantern Cro 01:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ways to fix a page and Template:Shortcuts[edit]

Subst/delete or userfy. Templates used only on one user subpage. Chris talk back 18:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Incidentally, the attempt to subst failed when including two templates.[reply]

Template:Nintendo-screenshot[edit]

An unnecessary subset of Template:Game-screenshot. Firebug 01:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated 2005-12-02–2005-12-09[edit]

Template:String-theory[edit]

Delete: This sidebar is much too big and distracting. We already have a list of string theory topics (from which this sidebar was copied) for navigational purposes. I suppose could be paired down, but I'd rather see it deleted altogether. String theory is much too big a topic to put a sidebar like this on every relevant page. Fropuff 16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be keep and prune. I will work on a new version of this template and remove the deletion request. -- Fropuff 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GA[edit]

OK, I've coined the following: label creep. We have FAC, FARC, failed FAC, peer review, etc. We DO NOT NEED a "good article" label. What is the implication? That most articles suck? Note this links to a proposed guideline which should probably be deleted itself. At the least we should eliminate the template as this indicates sanctioning a (meaningless) distinction between articles that is not guideline or policy. Delete. Marskell 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments make no sense. The only pages "cluttered" by the templates are the talk pages for the articles, not the actual article pages themselves. If it's underused, that just means that more people need to be informed about the topic and submit more articles. And, by extension, your argument regarding "people who don't want their (bad) article changed/deleted" can just as easily be extended into the FA process (as an example, reference [4], and in particular this edit summary [5]).--Lordkinbote 20:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Good articles don't need to tell you they're good" makes perfect sense. "Good" is so sweeping it's useless. Marskell 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To move this in another direction, renaming to "Potential Featured Articles" or some such thing might be a doable. I read a page, don't know much about/don't have time for it, but slap the label on hoping someone else picks up on it. Marskell 21:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, I have to ask if you have visited WP:GA? There we have defined what we mean by 'good', so I can't see how tagging an article as 'good' is at all vague. Atlantima, also, have you read the page? If you think it's 'really in general a silly idea', you should take that up on the project talk page. Again I will say that I am completely mystified as to why some people think that encouraging high standards, and identifying the articles that meet those standards, for more than just the 0.1% of articles that are featured, is somehow a silly idea. Worldtraveller 01:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did visit the page. Unneeded "FA lite." No one has suggested not encouraging high standards. We do just that via Peer Review and FAC. The Featured Article process is the best piece of working bureaucracy Wiki has. Simply slapping a "good" tag, with no peer discussion, accomplishes little by contrast. Marskell 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't like WP:GA, surely it would be best to start on its talk page, instead of nominating the templates it uses for deletion? It is still listed as a proposed policy and there has been plenty of discussion about its merits, although it has found considerable support, as you can see from the voting here. Worldtraveller 01:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DelistedGA[edit]

Delete per above. --Marskell 23:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L#d templates[edit]

Template:L3d[edit]

Delete or userfy, only used once →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:L2d[edit]

Delete or userfy, only used once →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ld[edit]

Delete or userfy, only used once →AzaToth; 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on L#d Group[edit]

Keep. Comment It looks like these are used to find missing years or other sequential things. Is there any reason to keep them. Trödel|talk 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC). Seems useful enough to keep the three templates. Trödel|talk 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful tools for creating sequences of links, and detecting existence of pages in the sequences.--Patrick 10:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jew list[edit]

Delete: What is the point of this list? Are there also lists identifying who is Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Muslim, Buddhist, etc? Is the author stocktaking? Is he/she identifying who is Jewish for any specific purpose, or is this solely to imply a degree of contamination or undue influence by a specific group on the entertainment industry? Enormous box which is highly intrusive into any article it's insterted. At best, a link would serve, this is just grating. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The solution to its "highly intrusive...grating[ness]" is to discuss it on Template talk:Jew list, not to unilaterally nominate it for deletion. If you feel it's ugly, bring that up with the people who turned it into a box instead of plain text like it was before. TomerTALK 05:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would one nominate for deletion multilaterally? The word "unilateral" is slung around in far too gung-ho a fashion. -Splashtalk 21:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By first garnering the support of multiple users, preferably ones interested in the template in question. This can be achieved by participating on the template's talk page, which was not done. I didn't throw, toss, fling or sling the word "unilateral" around in either a willy-nilly nor gung-ho fashion, I used it precisely as I meant it. The TfD nom was filed w/o a word of discussion on the talkpage...not even a note on the talkpage discussing the rationale for the TfD nom!! In fact, the nominator hasn't yet contributed to talk there. At least s/he's since withdrawn the TfD request... I agree, the template was intrusive and ugly, and that the new version is an improvement for those reasons (although before it was turned into a box it was just fine...) ... but that's something to bring up on talk, not a reason, according to the TfD criteria, to nominate it for deletion. Hence, my objection, and my assertion that it was done unilaterally. Tomertalk 06:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Presuming that we're keeping the various lists of jewish people, then having a standard definition of terms is necessary. I'd support making it less lengthy though, and I'd definitely support a les offensive name (using the word "Jewish" instead of "Jew") --Arcadian 06:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just made it far less intrusive and grating. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 09:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with Phil's new version.--Sean|Black 21:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand why Zoe wants to delete templates that simply are in need of improvement. She recently listed one purely because it contained misspellings! (And she withdrew the nomination when the spelling was corrected!) —Lifeisunfair 21:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Phil's new version. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meaningless. Gold Stur 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The verion I see now is small, convenient, and linked to by over 50 articles [6]! Keep, keep, keep. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reference to "Who is a Jew?". If you don't want list of Jews, AfD them, but as long as we have them, this template serves a useful role in explaining the subtleties of such categorization. MosheZadka 14:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Izehar (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty abhorrent title, and the concept seems less than necessary. There have been other (horrendous) uses for 'Jew lists', and non-Jews may not be aware of the discomfort caused by the concept, phraseology and use of such a list. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion already occured. All the Jews in the discussion were aware of the historical implications, and thought it is nice if for once a "Jew list" could be a nice thing :) MosheZadka 16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who ever 'we' is, this is not a point to 'yah yah'. It's a valid point and important to an encyclopedic entity like Wikipedia. My point that this needs to be clear to MORE than just the 'Jews in the discussion' stands, regardless of pat dismissals on your part. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see the point or value of such a template, and it certianly can be percived as offensive. In geenral lists by religion or ethnicity are a bad idea IMO, and tempaltes that encourage them are suspect in my eyes. DES (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up or Delete. The wording is way too offensive, it needs fixing.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful. Guys, if the text is offensive, that doesn't mean you should delete it. If it serves a purpose, then clean it up. With that said, I don't see what's so offensive about it. Maybe you guys haven't noticed that we also have an article titled List of Jews (as well as List of Italians and List of Japanese people, among others, no doubt). Deletion of such lists has already been discussed and decided against. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews As long as such lists exist, this template is perfectly useful. -- Dpark 20:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One either has Japanese citizenship, or does not. The same cannot be said of one's faith. Whether one is or is not a Jew is not an objective assessment. There are different criteria for such an assignment based on whether one is Orthodox, one is practicing or not, etc. And again - there is a difference between a list of Jewish people and a 'tag' used for labeling individuals as Jews. They are not the same thing and it's wrong to imply such an equivalence. Labeling a person's article as a 'known Jew' is a vile and subjective practice. Only Individuals themselves have the objective ability to identify themselves as Jews - that's not an objective assessment for anyone else to make. One's parentage and practice (among many other things) affect that assessment. In Nazi Germany, the criteria were far broader. Whose subjective perspective is right? The individual, and the individual alone. Accordingly, this tag is ill-advised.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This tag is not for individuals. This tag is for pages which are lists of Jews. You acting as if the two are the same, and they are not. And whether or not lists of Jews are appropriate is not what this TfD is about. Nor are the criteria for "who's a Jew" up for debate here. If you want to debate who counts as Jewish, take it to the appropriate talk page. If you don't want lists of Jews, take them to AfD again. This isn't the appropriate place for those discussions. -- Dpark 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't discuss a tag without the criteria for using it. This tag is ill-advised. As I have said repeatedly, it's not about the list, nor about individuals. Don't conflate the issue. It's about the tag. My observation stands and is relevant, as relevant as your comments. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This tag does not label anyone, though. It labels pages which are lists of Jews. The pages this tag are used on already label the people on them as Jews. e.g. List of Jewish American Linguists This tag doesn't do any labelling, because it's already been done. If you don't like the labelling, this is not the place to argue it. Deleting this tag doesn't remove any labelling. -- Dpark 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my G*d whats next tfd of Template:Jews and Judaism (sidebar) because of the name being offensive?!?!?  ALKIVAR™ 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extremely useful to make the casual reader aware of the myriad definitions of who should be considered Jewish from all POVs. JFW | T@lk 12:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blatantvandal/Template:Blatantvandal-n[edit]

Delete: Similar situation to {{blatantvandal}}. --Nlu 16:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am merging two delete requests. Pointless to debate the two templates separately, as they are the same template with a minor technical difference. They should be kept together or deleted together. As per OwenX request "Can we combine these two TfDs?" FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Duplicate {{test3}}/{{test4}} in function, and I think creates confusion on how much vandalism that the vandal had done, making it harder to tell whether to block or not. I think that streamlining back into the test/test-n series is better --Nlu 16:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, since the wording of {{test4}} assumes other warnings have been given, and there are definitely cases where blocking after a single warning is appropriate (see also "People who add penis pictures to widely-used templates"). —Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep is part of a series dealing with specific issues. The test series is not effective for specific cases. This and other templates are designed to fill the gaps where a specific warning about a specific type of behaviour is required. The test series lacks that ability because it is generalised and unfocused. While the tests are useful in some areas they are unsuitable in others. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template lets the following admin decide whether the next vandalism justifies blocking, or one more warning. Both {{test4}} and {{test4im}} imply the next action must be a block. This template is one of the most frequently used on vandal talk pages. Owen× ☎ 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certain instances of vandalism warrant only a single warning. Hall Monitor 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep certain vandals need a harsher warning than the "test" templates. Izehar (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this extremely useful template. There are times when this is the perfect warning. Antandrus (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot think of any reason to delete these templates. There's some vandalism that's so ... blatant we just get rid of the fools doing it. -Splashtalk 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've reverted vandalism like this before and found the available templates lacking, this is good for certain purposes. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template was created for cases in which someone does something so egregious (e.g. replacing Microsoft with a picture of a penis) that the {{test}} → {{test2}} → {{test3}} → {{test4}} sequence wouldn't cover the severity of the offense. This basically says, "Ok, if you try anything, you're out of here." There's no need to warn certain vandals with 4 tags. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very useful in those cases for which it was created. Nothing confusing that I can see; surely the blocking admin always checks how much vandalism there was before actually blocking. No...? Vandalism templates exist for giving the user appropriate warning, not for saving wear and tear on admins' thinking processes. We remain responsible for our blocks. Bishonen | talk 07:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weasel[edit]

Delete : This template is extremely unprofessional. Not suitable for wikipedia. At minimum, it should reworded and the word weasel should not appear anywhere in the description. Also I dont see how this template differs much from other POV / NPOV templates. --DuKot 06:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_no_fr[edit]

Nomination this is getting kind of silly: Is there any reason anyone can think of why wiki should have a no-french template?--Aolanonawanabe 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Underconstruction[edit]

All articles are under construction. This template serves no purpose. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per the nomination. —Lifeisunfair 04:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indestinguishable in function from the INUSE tag. I'm No Parking and I approved this message
  • Strong keep. I've found this template useful; this is good where you are planning or in the middle of a major expansion but can't quite complete it in one sitting, as this allows whoever reads the article to know that it is in the middle of a major expansion -- that whoever put the tag on didn't simply leave the article in a semi-finished state (which would be an encouragement for whoever sees it to remove the unfinished sections, I'd say, without the tag). {{inuse}} is not functionally equivalent, as it tells people to keep their hands off, where as this template encourages people to get involved. They have different uses. (What this is functionally equivalent to is {{under construction}}, and perhaps one of them can go, but not both.) --Nlu (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reword. I don't want to have to guess when the article is done being constructed if I'm patrolling Newpages. If you can't create the article in one sitting, you should create it in your userspace and then move it to the article space, or something along those lines. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 04:33:21Z
  • Merge to ((under construction)) or Weak Delete. As per Eventualism philosophy, articles can have incomplete major sections. Also, this tag and ((inuse)) essentially excludes articles from collaborative editing. Lastly, what if the editor becomes incommunicado, or becomes busy? -- Perfecto 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you mean merge to {{inuse}}? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why this template "excludes articles from collaborative editing" -- because it explicitly encourages others to edit the article. It just reminds them not to remove what appears to be incomplete or out of context, because whoever was working on it will add it, hopefully at his/her earliest convenience. When I used it, I'd have appreciated if people added things while I'm still working on the expansion, and would have been terribly annoyed if people removed the "blank" sections that I added. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but this doesn't make sense to me. Why did you add blank sections to an article, and why would you have been "terribly annoyed" if someone had removed them (thereby returning the page to a relatively professional appearance, irrespective of length)? It would have taken a matter of seconds to restore the headings from the revision history (not that I recognize any benefit to their premature presence). —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was "an incomplete article that should be cleaned up." What was the purpose of adding individual headings before the corresponding sections had been written? —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the section headings first greatly assist in editing; that way, you can edit one section at a time and save one section at a time, without saving them in one gigantic block. Editing by sections is in fact a highly recommended edit technique when it comes to lengthy articles, because that way you don't edit-conflict the entire article if someone else were going to edit another section while you're working on a section. --Nlu (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful. Sometimes the expansion or creation of an article is spread out over a number of sittings; this template is useful for explaining, e.g., section headers with no content underneath. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful JG of Borg 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Chris Parham.--Sean|Black 05:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — but tidy it up first. Does it have to be that big? -- Cjmarsicano 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Tidy up — This is a very useful template, if it gets deleted I'll get annoyed because I've just begun using this for people who have created an article and want to finish it later but don't want it speedy deleted. I think it would be better if it matched the other article tags such as {{wikify}} with a blue background. — Wackymacs 07:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: People are saying that this template's purpose is to indicate that an article contains incomplete elements that the user plans to continue editing in the near future. If this is correct, it should be reworded to convey this fact in a clear manner. (I agree with Zoe that the present wording describes every article.) Also, I disagree with this method of article revision. Why not simply wait until the text is sufficiently developed before adding it to the actual article? I don't mean that the article should be in a mature state before it's allowed to exist, but why submit content untidy enough to require a special tag (such as unused headings, partially written paragraphs, etc.)? If the goal is collaboration, why not simply develop the new version via a subpage (linked from the article's talk page), and transfer it over when it reaches a reasonably coherent state? —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have changed the wording and style of the template so that it matches other cleanup/work tags such as Wikify and Verify. If anyone disagrees with the new wording they can change it if they want. Simply waiting until the text has developed may be too late, because an administrator might have already tagged it for speedy delete or another tag. — Wackymacs 10:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's two main reasons to put whatever you have directly into the article namespace. (1) It starts helping people right away -- this template shouldn't be used on pages that have no content whatsoever, so whatever is already completed is likely to help someone searching for the topic. The template also alerts them to check back soon to see what else has been added. (2) It prevents duplication of work by people writing a totally different new article on the subject, or from people adding tags (like section-stub) to an article that the editor is already well alert to. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with users above stating that it should be cleaned up / made more uniform, but I find it useful in that I can label an (existing) article as under construction - e.g., when I am translating a long article in a different language to add to the article, and cannot do it all in one go. However, I can see that the solution proposed by lifisunfair is also viable - I just find it a needless complication. ACH 11:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All this template does is clutter up an article page with information that a reader would find useless anyway. Templates like this should be exclusively on Talk pages, and in this case this template wouldn't even be at all useful on a Talk page, since simply saying specifically what you're currently in the process of editing in Discussion is much easier and more informative. The only time templates should be used on an article page itself is when the template is absolutely vital, like when there's a major NPOV dispute or when the article urgently needs a major copyedit. Something as trivial, vague, and just downright useless as this is nothing but template overuse. What's next, a template that says "This article is not perfect. Please feel free to edit it to make it better."? Or "This article exists. It is not a delusion implanted in your mind by the space monkeys."? Stuff like this goes without saying, and is immediately obvious to any editor who's even remotely interested thanks to the very handy features called "Talk pages" and "Edit histories". Any editor who's so reckless that he'd start messing around with an article he's unfamiliar with that looks incomplete without even checking the Talk page or the Edit History is someone who needs dealing with personally by telling the guy that he needs to assume good faith more and not jump to the conclusion that the article's a big mistake, not something that needs to be dealt with giant brightly-colored templates that could apply to hundreds of thousands of articles. -Silence 08:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what purpose it serves. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nprotect[edit]

No need for this ugly template.Ridnik 18:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is currently being discussed. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#New_protection_template? I say leave it alone until it's decided there, at which point if it's decided against it can be speedied or put through the process then. -- Dpark 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — don't see what is wrong with it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is already {{P-protected}}. — Wackymacs 21:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a problem with it, and I'd wait for the procedure per Dpark. Also, {{P-protected}} is similar, but not the same thing. — The Hooded Man 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No update on the village pump for two days now. If there's no new info/discussion by tomorrow, I'll change my vote to delete. -- Dpark 15:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:BondInfo[edit]
Template:BondInfo should also be deleted. Info not in box could be in text of article. No movie series should have own template.Steve-O 22:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Speedy Keep for James Bond infobox, the infobox is tailored for James Bond and includes things that are significant to Bond such as the actor who plays Bond (rather than doing every ensemble, which is listed in the article anyway), info on the theme song (very notable), and includes preceeding and following links. There's nothing wrong this. Considering there are 21 films officially, a television episode, and 2 unofficial films, I think having it's own template is fine. No other film series that I'm aware of (at least anywhere near Bond's popularity) even comes close to that. We allow differing character infoboxes tailored to individual films/series/novels etc, whats so wrong with this? K1Bond007 23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. I'm unaware of any wikipolicy saying films shouldn't have their own templates. Can Steve-O provide a source for this assertion. In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with using an infobox tailor-made for a series. It's no different than the template created for, say, Doctor Who and Star Trek episodes. The fact a generic infobox has been created for film is beside the point, because this is a film series we're talking about and it is therefore vital to include chronology information. No everyone knows Goldfinger comes after Dr. No. 23skidoo 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the box for Bond, suggested reason for deletion is patently ridiculous. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My only complaint is that it's the only movie series to have their own 'movie' infobox. That includes Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars... so why bother having it and not just the standard info box? The extra info that is in the box is already in the page already (who played Bond, music and so on). I'm not saying it's policy per say to delete it. That's why I put it up for debate. IMO, and I guess I'm alone on this, is it doesn't look very encyclopedic but rather like a fanboy page.Steve-O 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fanboy page? Ironically, one of the articles you're talking about is a featured article. It's about quick reference. James Bond is 23 films long and has a number of unique features or pertinent information that the infobox supplies that the regular film infobox does not. It's that simple. There's no reason/guideline/policy or whatever that says a film series of this size can't create an infobox to tailor information better to the reader. K1Bond007 05:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add to the above, if editors of the LOTR, Star Wars, etc. films want to borrow/steal the infobox used for Bond, they're welcome to it. I plan on adapting it for the Universal Frankenstein films myself. 23skidoo 06:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cyclone49 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for all francise-specific movie infoboxes. Also, I should point out that the album infobox template has been recently modified so that many of the items that can be filled in are now optional and will only come up when the information is filled in; doing the same thing with the movie template would be a good compromise and be very helpful for case-by-case entries. -- Cjmarsicano 06:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For reasons above. The guidlines listed here prevent me from discussing the wisdom of Steve-O in proposing this! Mark83 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Implicit uncivilty is still uncivil. EldKatt (Talk) 14:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As has been mentioned there are numerous unique facts for bond films such as music, girls, etc., and whilst they are mentioned in the text this quick-reference format is very useful and aids quick and easy use. User:Iancaddy 11:50 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User nude[edit]

Seems to be unused. Huh. The associated category should also go, if this does, I guess. -- Beland 10:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep lol. Harmless and fun Borisblue 07:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept, but the image was removed because of a bunch of sensible arguments against it.

Template:User kl-1[edit]

Delete: Level 1 of Babel templates for Klingon language, but the five levels of Klingon language Babel templates already exist: see Wikipedia:Babel#tlh - tlhIngan Hol (Klingon). tlh is the language code for Klingon, and kl is the language code (ISO 639-2) reserved for Kalaallisut language. I wrote to the the template's creator (and also other person using this template) to give them information about that. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep new form of template

Template: Muslim conflicts[edit]

Delete: Template is mispelled, incoherent, and hopelessly vague. Should conflicts include both battles and arguments? Any instance in which Muslims argued or fought about something? Category tag for battles is sufficient. Developed and applied by one user without any input from other editors. Zora 04:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was needing to create List of wars in the Islamic world and I happened to use this as a starting point. I removed obviously non-war listings, but someone more familiar with the subject should probably take a look at it. -- Beland 11:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, better done with Category tags. If you don't know the history at all, you may not realize what an enormous subject this is. Imagine a list of all battles fought by Christians. Zora 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i agree -- it should be deleted. aside from the obvious spelling and grammar issues (how could someone not have noticed them?), the topic is both very broad and quite open to negative manipulation. what would stop someone from trying to include modern events -- and what criteria would be used? furthermore, the title 'muslim conflicts' -- i think it promotes the misconception of muslims as violent. Dgl 15:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this. Misspelling is not criteria for deletion. I named it "conflicts" and not "war" so it could include conflicts that did not erupt in open warfare, like the rebelion against uthman, the treaty of hudaibya and the hasan-muawiya treaty. This makes it able to include all major events.

Reacting on what is said on this here, i renamed it to "early", aimed at go up to the battle of karbala, from there everything is a great mess. Before that, every conflict was major and distinct, after the battle of Karbala eveything descended into chaos, Umayyad vs Sunni vs Shi'a.

Striver, that's your SHI'A interpretation of history, that the early history ends at Karbala. Karbala is pivotal for you; it isn't for Sunni Muslims.
There is no need for an early Islamic history template, since all the early Islamic history articles are so extensively interlinked. Just looking at Muhammad, or Ali, or Umar, or Aisha, whatever, leads you to all the other historical articles, through a web of links. There IS an article called Timeline of Islamic history, with lots of subpages. It needs work (which Striver could do) but a See also link on the history articles could lead interested readers to other events happening at the same time. A template is not needed, but a See also could be useful. Zora 08:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need for a template that lets one to navigate between the major events that happened in the early History of Islam. I named it "muslim conflicts" and not name it "Islamic conflicts" since that would make things open to pov wars, everyone does not agree on what conflicts where "Islamic" or not. A Druze would deem the war against the kwharijes as un-Islamic, Shi'a deem the wars of Abu Bakr as un-Islamic, a Sunni would name the siege of UThamn as un-Islamic and so on... so "Muslim conflicts" avoid that. So "Early Muslim conflicts" is the perfect name IMOH. --Striver 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep as "Early Muslim conflicts". These events are critical part of islamic History and can shed light of why muslims are the way they are now after The demise of the prophet. Also His great prophecies about his distinguished prophecies about the turbulances that would follow and his stand. These prophecies are agreed upon by both sunnis and shia with difference in ther historical details and interpretation. It is surely essential to keep for people to understand the evolutio of islamic politics. Nowadays sunni governments base their rule on the iterpretation of those events. Shia on the other hand distinguish themselves largely due to these events.

Template:BadJPEG[edit]

Delete. This template was created by ChrisRuvolo on December 2, and has been used by Bkell to tag approximately 1,800 images over the past week. The problem is that its recommendation is not necessarily sound; the JPEG format is legitimately used for images other than photographs. Quoting Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload (to which this template links), "the PNG compression algorithm is designed to work with large areas of solid colour that have sharp boundaries." Images such as this one and this one would have much larger file sizes in the PNG-24 format (Either of these would be more than twice its current file size.) Furthermore, most of these images likely came from JPEG sources, so it's impossible to "revisit" a non-JPEG version and reduce the number of compression artifacts. —Lifeisunfair 04:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Template seems to imply that users can change other extensions to .jpg, for instance from .htm, to trick the servers into uploading them, except that the upload thingie aoutomatically parses images to ensure that they are real .jpg images, I can't imagine what use this template is under those conditions--Aolanonawanabe 05:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You bring up a good point, Lifeisunfair. I'll go through the category and try to remove these tags from images such as those you've pointed out. Those are exceptions, though. The vast majority of the images that have been tagged are JPEG images that really do need to be in the PNG or SVG formats: maps, logos, graphs, etc. There have been a few instances where, for the specific image in question, JPEG is probably the correct choice, but only because the image is a photograph of a flag, for example, and a PNG version would be an improvement. I'm not sure I understand what Aolanonawanabe is saying. The wording of the template could probably be changed, if it would make the intent clearer. Certainly JPEG compression is appropriate for some images that are not photographs. —Bkell 05:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I guess I can vote, so I'll vote Strong keep. The template is only a few days old, and it still has some kinks to work out, such as how it should be worded, and what exactly it should be applied to. But it is an attempt to address a real problem, so deleting it because it's not perfect isn't the right solution. —Bkell 05:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, give it a chance before getting rid of it. —Locke Cole 08:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. I had the template tagged on a fair use logo soon after I uploaded it. I have doubts about the other uses of it, but it should NEVER be put on a fair use logo image. If the people tagging images with it can't even think that part through, then obliterate the dang thing. BlankVerse 14:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it should NEVER be put on a fair use logo image": Why not? Just because some corporation provides their logo in JPG format on their website, doesn't mean we can't provide a better PNG or SVG version here. Keep, by the way. dbenbenn | talk 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this template has absolutely nothing to do with the legality or copyright status of the image in question. It is also not meant to say that the image shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. It is a request for someone to find or make a PNG or SVG version of the image, and then, after we have such a thing, the JPEG version can be replaced with a cleaner image and a smaller file size. —Bkell 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an annoying problem on some images that are so obviously in the wrong format with artifacts etc. It's a good idea, just somebody was over keen applying the template I guess! wangi 17:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but do not apply to fair-use images, as User:BlankVerse has indicated; we should not be in the business of altering source material for our convenience ... a logo from an external entity has properties that are often the subject of long design and our altering that design for mechanistic convenience is not in the spirit of providing to end users accurate content. In other words, if we "make it better" in the case of logos, we are no longer providing accurate content to readers. Courtland 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but do not apply to logos. --Gurubrahma 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that the JPEG artifacts in the image are a carefully designed part of the logo? Maybe when these companies order embroidered polo shirts for their employees, they pay extra to get those JPEG artifacts stitched in. I would argue against that. Let's look at, for instance, Image:Mdlogo.JPG. I am of the opinion that those splotchy patches in the "Dew" are not carefully designed and part of the logo, but are rather an unfortunate side effect of saving this image as a JPEG. A PNG image would have a clean, solid color of red. —Bkell 19:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have done a lot of work in converting JPEGs that should have been PNGs or SVGs to the correct format. Some people believe removal of artifacts this is impossible, but it's not. One technique is palette reduction, another is the use of the magic wand tool with a tolerance setting, followed by a fill. If we can put George Bush's head on Carmen Electra's body, we can certainly repair bad JPEGs.
As for fair use images, I also disagree with the assertion that we should not repair these; usually, a JPEG logo from the company's website is based on a vector-graphics logo used on merchandise, and some shmuck doing the website just screwed up the format. The artifacts are not part of the real logo, and it's not difficult to remove the artifacts while leaving the original, intended image completely intact and virtually visibly identical. I did this, for example, with the Boots logo.
Regarding the excessive filesize of PNG-24 images, we normally reduce the palette to 16 or even 8 colours before uploading. However, the software doesn't currently support colour reduction of thumb images, so these may be large. Deco 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
File:Coa congo zaire.jpg File:DR Congo CoA svg 250 palette reduced.png
  • Maybe people don't realize what this template is really attempting to do. Look at the two images above. The one on the left is the original JPEG image, complete with JPEG fuzz and blur around all the edges. The one on the right in the middle is the much improved SVG version drawn by Mysid. Note how much cleaner it is; what's more, it can be drawn at any size and still be crisp and clean. This is the kind of improvement we're trying to spur with this template. —Bkell 19:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and also note that if in the future the server adds palette reduction for generated images, the PNG will often be much smaller than the JPEGs. I've added a third version above which is palette-reduced to 4 colours in Photoshop; it is only 1480 bytes, about 17% the size. Additionally, many simple images such as flags are much smaller even at PNG-24, due to RLE. Also, to be fair, the JPEG above was saved at low quality — if it were saved at quality 7 or 8, the artifacts would be less visible, but it would be at least twice as large. Deco 19:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should also be noted that it's not possible to open that JPEG in Photoshop and just crank up some "quality" setting to fix it. Once an image has been saved as a JPEG, the compression artifacts are there to stay. Getting rid of them requires someone to sit down and do some nontrivial work. After that work has been done, the best course of action is to save the new image as a PNG, so that you don't introduce more compression artifacts by saving it as a JPEG again. —Bkell 19:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep (great for flags and coats of arms etc.) and don't apply on fair-use company logos (maybe explain this on the category page). High-quality versions of logos often do not qualify as fair use; recreating them will be a lot of work that is potentially infringing on copyright. Kusma (討論) 19:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting point, and I've thought about that after reading the {{logo}} template. But surely actions like fixing Image:Mdlogo.JPG don't affect the fair-use status of that image, if the resolution isn't increased. —Bkell 19:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consider SVG logos, which can be scaled dynamicly. There is no native resolution, and detail is not lost when resized. Does this preclude fair use of that image? Consider Image:007.svg. Also, consider an encapsulated postscript file of a company logo presented on their web site for use in publications. Would that not qualify as fair use? If rendered as a PNG? If translated to SVG? I think it is fairly straightforward that it would qualify. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but use properly. Phil Sandifer 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's good to educate uploaders about picking correct formats. In some cases it might be impossible to get a "clean" version of the image, in wich case simply remove the template, but IMHO it's a good idea to remind people that JPEG is very poorly suited for line art and such. If some images have been inaproriately tagged just remove it from those images. People tagging images with this template could save us some time if they didn't bother tagging old discarded files that are CSD candidates though. I seem to mostly run into this tag when deleting orphanded "fair use" files, those should simply be tagged with {{db-i5}} instead. --Sherool (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the template is removed, it's possible that someone will fail to notice that the image previously was tagged, and therefore will re-tag it. I have an idea for a solution to this, and I'm going to work on that now. —Lifeisunfair 21:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After reading the above discussion and Bkell's messages on my talk page, I now believe that this template can serve a valid purpose, but its wording and application are in need of significant review. Presently, the tag itself implies that non-photographic images never should be uploaded as JPEGs, which obviously isn't true. Also, Bkell has been applying the template strictly to logos, most of which were taken directly from websites in the JPEG format (as often is explicitly mentioned in the descriptions). I'm going to attempt to reword the template accordingly. —Lifeisunfair 21:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been applying it to more than just logos. I went through a bunch of maps a few days ago, for example. It just so happens that at the moment I'm working on logos. If you feel that better defined rules need to be in place for what this template should be applied to (I would agree), I'd invite you to help us reach a policy on the template's talk page. —Bkell 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is a very useful tag. I often replace inappropriate JPEG images I find with PNGs. However, I don't always have time to do the conversion myself, so having a template is handy. It might be better to reword the warning such that it doesn't refer exclusively to photographic images; lots of human- and computer-generated artwork, for example, also compresses well with JPEG. —Psychonaut 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is a JPEG doesn't mean it should have photographic information, should it? (I could go and convert the image to PNG and re-upload it but I don't know what good it will do...) Mattderojas 21:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 December[edit]

Template:Weasel words[edit]

Delete: Duplicate of Template:Weasel. This duplicate template was recently created and based on an older version of the original weasel template. We've been debating whether to use the term "weasel words" or "generic attributions" (or something else entirely), and rather than wait for a concensus, Crotalus horridus created this one specifically as a "Competing weasel words template". It's an intentional duplicate, which we do not need. Dpark 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:65xx processors[edit]

This navigation template is too unwieldy to be of much use. Despite the title, it includes not only processors in the 65xx family, but all of the various integrated circuits produced by MOS Technology. That name may not be familiar to you, but they were very big in the early 1980s (MOS products ran the Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Apple II family, and a bunch of arcade machines) and having a navigation template like this is like having one for all Intel or NVIDIA chips ever released. I have created smaller navigational templates for each category (video/sound chips, CPUs, etc.) and this template is now orphaned. Delete. Crotalus horridus 14:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with Mirror Vax on this one (even though I did some editing on one of the suggested replacement templates earlier tonight, I might add). I originally made the 65xx template to facilitate navigation among the quite diverse, but not extremely extensive, range of MOS chips; I suspect some readers might know vagely of the processors but perhaps not of the support chips. BTW, after Crotalus' recent edits to the template, it actually got more tidy. :-) As for the template's name, it is of absolutely no concern to readers. --Wernher 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:P-protected[edit]

And Category:Protected due to publicity

This template is for protection due to high visibility... which is unwiki and against current policy. We protect pages that have excessive vandalism ({{vprotect}}), but not before. In fact, the fact that an article was mentioned somewhere that it is getting attention is good and presents our face to new visitors. As well as the fact that new visitors represent a chance for our article to improve by their edits, and shouldn't be protected from them except in extraordinary circumstances. As well, it's in direct contradiction to WP:PPol, which says:

When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

May also want to review User:Raul654/protection for the reasons behind this. Should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of the protection policy, recent events have made it clear that this is not the case, as Jimbo protected the Seigenthaler article prior to the CNN appearance, and Kyra Phillips was protected the moment she mentioned it. This ought not become regular behavior, however it is clear that there is a threshold at which point we protect, in which case this template is important. Note that this template also encourages users towards other articles that they can edit, mitigating many of the problems of "But we want the first article people hit to be editable" Phil Sandifer 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about wanting the readers to be able to edit, it's about the encyclopedia. Editing is how our encyclopedia functions. In any case, this template is not a good way to make policy, or even common practice. If you want to propose this policy (which I would dispute at this point), do so, but don't put it into practice without consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not putting it into practice. Jimbo already has put it into practice. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This template is an attempt to make it common practice without community support. You cannot pretend that Seigenthaler is an ordinary situation. The fact is that while Jimbo has the ultimate goal of our encyclopedia always in mind, he is sometimes out of touch with the specifics of how things work at a given time (a certain 17 second block comes to mind). He has worries other than editing here every day. If anything I would say this is a much more IAR necessitated action, rather than a new practice that is anything like policy yet. Dmcdevit·t 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not the ideal forum for policy considerations, which is the basis of Dmcdevit's objections. Besides, IMHO, that paragraph in WP:PPOL is unjustifiably optimistic (and appears to refer only to online sources, to boot), and should probably be changed. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I think that this would make sense if there was a policy proposal... but right now it's just wrong. Nothing will reasonably be protected with this template. Dmcdevit·t 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, high volume public pages need some sort of label.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No article should ever be "protected due to publicity", since the entire point of getting publicity for Wikipedia is to let people edit the article being publicized so the Wikipedia process gets the news out. Also, it's not a good habit to protect articles just because they're being vandalized; reverting vandalism is easy, and articles that are receiving lots of edits are also getting plenty of good editors in addition to the vandals. Protecting pages should only be used as an anti-vandalism measure in truly extreme cases, not as a regular, everyday tool (for the same reason articles featured on the main page aren't locked). All it takes to make sure that none of the vandalisms are slipping through is to do what I always do: do a compare between the current version and the version 20 or 30 edits ago, and see if any new vandalism has slipped in (particularly effective since I've found that major edits that aren't vandalism are relatively rare for high-publicity articles). In any case, this template is unnecessary and redundant to other templates that already address the "protected due to vandalism" and "prone to vandalism due to having been recently cited or linked to" issues. Also, embarrassingly self-referential and bloated; does it really need the "800,000" self-advertisement bit added at the end? -Silence 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may say that no article should ever be protected due to publicity, but Jimbo directly countered you on that one, so the objection is moot - he had John Seigenthaler Sr. protected before going on CNN. As for the self-advertisement bit, yes - the expectation is that the page in question is going to be the first Wikipedia page hit by a huge swarm of people who do not know much about Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already know that Jimbo directly countered me on this one, as you've already stated it above. This would certainly influence my vote, were it not for the simple matter.. that Jimbo is wrong. Templates like this will do nothing but embarass Wikipedia and stunt it's growth at times when it most needs to be consistent and open to new contributions and exploration of the editing process. The best response to vandalism is reversion, not protection; protection should be the exception, for only the most brutal cases of vandalizing—not the norm. And if there's a vandalism storm going on, whether the article's being frequently populated right now or not isn't irrelevant, as the problem's still the same. -Silence 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of how grave my misunderstanding is, Jimbo doesn't become any more right no matter how many times one says "Jimbo did X". If my opinion is invalid because Jimbo is a god on earth whose will is not to be defied by the likes of mere mortals, then feel free to ignore my opinion, but that in itself will neither change it nor prevent me from expressing it. If our only purpose here is to interpret what we think Jimbo wants, not to interpret Wikipedia policy and goals and what's best for the articles, then we should probably skip the voting process on this issue altogether and just ask Jimbo to cast the only vote on the matter, then go with that. No need to run around in circles if the decision's pre-made, sure. But it's still a poor template that does not benefit Wikipedia.
  • Incidentally, based on what I know of the situation involving the articles that Jimbo protected, don't you think that it's more likely that he protected those articles because the ongoing news they were involved in directly related to Wikipedia? Plenty of articles get linked to and mentioned in the news all the time, but they don't usually get protected right off the bat; the difference here is not that the articles were especially prone to vandalism, but rather that vandalism was especially dangerous because Wikipedia's reputation was on the line due to the subject of the news being Wikipedia itself. So, even if protecting a page is warranted in such a situation, protecting it with a tag like this one is pointless and highly misleading. A tag involving the fact that the article is in the news because of itself (as was the case with John Seigenthaler Sr.) would be much more relevant and honest. -Silence 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again as per Silence's comments above. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High profile articles might be what draws attention to wikipedia, but new users should spend some time getting to know the correct way to edit articles. They shouldn't be editing the first page they ever see. By the time they learn the ropes, the page that got them here will no longer be protected and they will be able to make whatever reasonable improvements they want. Kafziel 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. Ugly, verbose, and unecessary. BlankVerse 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Publicity draws new experts to articles; those experts can't contribute if article is protected. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete contrary to policy, based on a misuderstanding of Jimbo's actions in the Seigenthaler case; per Silence. It's a mistake anyone could have made, but it's still a mistake. Articles are not and should not be protected due to publicity; they are (sometimes) protected due to self-reference (i.e. the Main Page is particularly visible in Wikipedia therefore it is protected), the Seigenthaler (and Kyra) page's were particularly visible due to their subjects involvement with Wikipedia, therefore they were protected). JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the moment, and eventually Redirect to {{sprotect}}, when that comes online. I view this as a patch measure, since Semi-protection seems to cover the reasons for this template, but isn't operational yet. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the fact is, high profile pages are often protected to counter vandalism: deleting or keeping this template does not change how protection is used; although, the policy may need to be updated to indicate that protection is indeed often used when an article has been linked from a high-traffic area: Linking from the main page or major web sites is a common case where protection is used, the protection is no coincidence, and the message given by this template explains the reason for the protection more adequately in this common case than the vague one-liner given by {{vprotected}}. --Mysidia (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Dmcdevit and Silence. Pages should not be protected just because they have been linked to or mentioned. The high influx of traffic is not always a bad thing, and sometimes greatly improve an article. Editors should be aware that the article has been linked to, but by using the {{high-traffic}} template. Pages should be protected if there is persistent vandalism, but that is what the {{vprotect}} template is for. --Mark Yen 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a reasonable argument against protecting linked/mentioned articles on a routine basis, but does not answer to the merits of having template -- so long as pages are actively protected for this reason in actual fact, the template has a useful function, which is to inform readers as to the protection and the unusual need for it, which differs from the vandalism that plagues some articles at other times (nature of the article, rather than prominence or greater visibility to the world). Otherwise, pages are still protected which are linked or mentioned, and the standard vague template is just used instead. Changing policy or admin practice is not really an acceptable use of a TFD (instead, propose something around Wikipedia:Protection policy). --Mysidia (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reword and Delete Category:Protected due to publicity — There needs to be something to "warn" new users and onlookers that we know they're probably gonna vandalize the page. But it shouldn't be because of the publicity, we should just say that it is popular, it is being vandalized, just not because —24.130.32.99 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete тəzєті 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - with regret. I would like to see the wording modified to say "almost all of our over 800,000 other articles." instead of "many of our over 800,000 other articles." but that's a nit. I would also like to suggest that some guidelines for usage be put in the <noinclude> section to let users know that the template should only be added to an article with great forethought. (although I acknowledge meta:Instruction creep with that suggestion) If Jimbo has set policy in this direction, (and I agree with User:Dmcdevit that discussion of policy may be appropriate) the template seems a good vehicle to make the policy as smooth as possible. Wish it weren't so though. ++Lar 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom: we already have {{high-visibility}} and {{vprotect}} (and now {{sprotect}}), so we really don't need this, it's just another badly written template that discourages new users, and makes us look like a cabal. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 03:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination, and also because it looks like we have quite the harem of protection templates. Not to mention it reads like an advertisement slash error message slash "apologies, but you're screwed" message. Cernen 11:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{sprotect}} or {{High-traffic}} should be used instead. Also, there should not be pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized. --Pmsyyz 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ties[edit]

delete: Orphaned at some point, {{UK ties2}} used in place of it. Thanks/wangi 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and redirect {{UK ties2}} to it. I prefer this version. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias - SoM 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias--Mais oui! 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{UK ties2}} is used only on United Kingdom. Subst either of these templates and then delete both. No need to clutter the template namespace with single-use templates that will only slow us down (in more ways than one). Chris talk back 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias(if you think its clutering up the template list then just delete it from the list - gawh ) --Whywhywhy 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the tfd notice was removed on the template, I've since added this back plus started a discussion on the Talk:United Kingdom#UK ties templates page regarding these three templates {{UK ties}}, {{UK ties2}} & {{UK ties3}} (2 of which are unused, 1 single use). It's probably a better place to discuss the way forward, but personally I think all three need to be deleted and the content subst in. Thanks/wangi 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As the original creator of all three templates, I'm certainly fine with deleting them all and including the content in the page; good housekeeping and so forth. I'd like to find a way of archiving the old situation, however, for the historical record. Any ideas on how? Doops | talk 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've figured out how. Would whoever takes action on this deletion request please do the following?
  • Copy-and-paste template 1 into the bottom of the article, with an edit comment saying "copied from deleted template UK_ties"
  • Then replace it with template 2, with an edit comment saying "replacing with content of deleted template UK_ties2"
  • do likewise with template 3
  • finally, revert if necessary to your preferred version. (Template 2 is the one currently in use, I believe.)
Thus it will in future be possible to understand any references on talk pages to the relative merits of the three templates. Thanks. Doops | talk 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Policylist[edit]

A) We don't need goofy cartoon pictures making our policy pages look like jokes. B) Perfectly adequately addressed by categories. C) Overly selective. D) The world does not need more ugly boxes. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico Broadcast Television[edit]

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dubious[edit]

Breaks article flow and improperly injects the reader into page content disputes (which was the primary objection raised against Template:Afd-noconsensus and Template:Twoversions). It also contains a cross-namespace link to the article talk page. Firebug 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and per User:Agentsoo at Template talk:Dubious. (For the record, his comment was, "Sites that reproduce our articles rarely reproduce the Talk pages, and certainly any printed version would not. It seems to break the normal rules of namespace boundaries. A simple note that the fact is disputed seems adequate, and readers can consult the Talk page if they so desire.") --Idont Havaname 05:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's quite OK for it to cross link to discussion since dubious content should not be in wikipedia, an article marked like this is a work in progress. This is very different from where the actual subject matter is in dispute, there you have both views etc. Here it's wikipedia's description of the subject, not the subject itself that is in dispute. 67.165.96.26 16:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not draw a line between "work in progress" articles and "finished articles", if only because all of our articles are (at least for now) very much in the former category. If part of an article is disputed then it should be moved to the Talk page until a source can be found. Yes, this is sometimes tedious (as I discovered with this, where there's still lots of stuff on the Talk page), but the alternative is much worse. This existence of this template implies an "official" attitude to Talk-namespace links that is simply incorrect. The sooner it's deleted the better. Soo 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I have a question for you: how should people deal with things like this paragraph. I added this tag on a paragraph that just didn't make sense to me, and especailly after seeing other people have the same concern on the talk page. However someone wrote it, and (especially) maybe I am missing something, so didn't want to just delete it. OTOH I didn't want a huge box at the top of the page or section marking DISPUTED, since it really wasn't a very big issue. This tag was perfect, but I'm open to other suggestions. 67.165.96.26 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep give a more succient warning tag. Much like NPOV section. J. D. Redding 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please -- at least long enough for me to deal with a dispute at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Biography. <>< tbc 08:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is a good way to point out specific accuracy issues when an article as a whole doesn't deserve the accuracy template. –Andyluciano 20:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Instantnood 20:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Canadian Broadcast Television[edit]

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. Ronald20 ☎ ✎ 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Unimage[edit]

  • Ambigious copyright tag, the text basically says we don't know the copyright of this image. Images in this category should be dealt with under the existing fair use system, delete.--nixie 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNeutral Specifies the image to be UN property. Maybe the UN will grant us rights to use their images sometime in the future. Then we will be lamenting the loss of this template. Ashibaka tock 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they do, we can always undelete it. Delete for now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Jbamb 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't encourage people to use this tag, and there's few images currently using it so no big deal cleaning it up. JYolkowski // talk 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If rewritten, this template could be used to indicate UN ownership and used together with an appropriate license tag. But we already ahve a general tag for images with no copyright or license information. DES (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have rewitten this to make it clar that it specifies ownership, not copyright status. i have looked at every image tagged with this, and all now have another image tag specifing their licensaing status, although in some cases it is {{no license}} and in a number of cases it is {{Non-free fair use in}}, some of which are also tagged with {{fairusereview}}. Under these cericumstances, i think this template and the associated category is useful for indicating the source/copyright of images derived from UN publications, although it is obviously not enough to indicate the licensing status. DES (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to rewrite by DES. Agnte 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How do you plan to notify users about source templates? Obviously this tag even as re-written is inappropriate for listing on the image copyright tag page, as it does not assert anything about copyright. Unless someone plans to roll out a new system for image source tags, the tag is still quite useless and should not be used in place of correct source information.--nixie 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the UN owns it, how are we going to prove permission to use? -- Jbamb 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some UN sources explicitly grant permission for general reuse. Some give permisisons addresses, to which a user can write, just as with any other request for permission. Some are old enough to be PD. Many have good fair use claims. Some we won't be able to use, and will need to be propmptly deleted. And in some cases an image may have been published by a UN agency, but the copyright is not in the UN. This tempalte really just adds some info about the provonance of the iamges in question, and groups them into a reasoanble category.DES (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While there might be some use for tags that specify the source of the image without specifying the licence, I think that the potential for confusion (e.g. the process that creates WP:UI would probably not pick up anything just tagged with {{unimage}}) and the fact that we don't have a comprehensive set of these weighs against it. No change in vote. JYolkowski // talk 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Hebrewterm[edit]

Makes a pretty cluttery little box that gives the translation of a Hebrew term. This causes a colossal mess on pages already overloaded with boxes and navigational aids, and the translation of a word can easily be mentioned in the text without any further need for boxes. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zh-c[edit]

Template:Zh-c (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — It's better to use more precise templates, zh-t and zh-s instead. BenjaminTsai Talk 05:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. --BenjaminTsai Talk 08:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is used when the traditional AND simplified characters are identical. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this I recommend moving zh-c to zh-u to specifically denote that this is used only when both traditional and simplified are the identical. I have encountered one or two instances where people assumed zh-c was not limited to the above restriction. --BenjaminTsai Talk 06:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can just clarify that somewhere, should be simple enough and most of the time people do use the right one(s). -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is used when the traditional AND simplified characters are identical.--Jiang 07:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 21[edit]

Userfy[edit]

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

To userfy Adrian Buehlmann 10:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 25[edit]

Template:User Feminist[edit]

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 26[edit]

Template:US City infobox[edit]

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. [7] 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 [8] — 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]

December 27[edit]

Template:the pillows[edit]

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]

December 28[edit]

Template:Album infobox 2[edit]

  • 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]

Template:Saskatchewan[edit]

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

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio[edit]

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.

December 29[edit]

Template:Todo, trains[edit]

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:European communist parties[edit]

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:Uncategorized[edit]

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]

December 30[edit]

Template:Web-reference[edit]

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]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Not_deleted/December_2005&oldid=1145854763"