Redundant with {{film-screenshot}}. Delete. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there's no reason that Law & Order images cannot be covered by the general-case film-screenshot. — EagleOne\^Talk 16:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the template is not an image copyright template (it says that the images may or may not be suitable) and so serves no real use. JYolkowski // talk 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even if it were an image copyright template, it's overly specific. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's more efficient to just type Category:Law & Order images than to clutter each one up with a big box that doesn't say anything important. -Silence 11:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not fare Pokémon has one (see {{pokeimage}}<nowiki>)</nowiki> Plus see {{DisneyLogo}} for Disney logos --Roadrunner3000 01:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the pointers. I'll list these for deletion as well. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have re-overhauled my template to make it look like a legal copyright tag. --Roadrunner3000 01:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too vague, and encourages spurious "fair use" claims. No change in vote. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding strikethrough. Each person gets to vote once. Feel free to comment though. If you want to change your vote, strikethrough your previous vote. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect. — Instantnood 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for increasing the difficulty in locating fair use images on Wp servers. Jkelly 23:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can see why Disney might need one since it is true that disney logos and those of it's subcompanies put a bit of a strain on the logo category, however this is just getting ridiculous, there is no need for this. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 08:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll go replace the instances with {film-screenshot}. -Splash^talk 03:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Used on a whopping one user page, to represent a nonsense concept which is not the same as having two native languages (which is happily catered for by using two of the -N templates). Chris 02:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd probably vote to keep it if it said "This user cannot speak any languages." -Silence 04:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case its very existence wouldn't make any sense... -Nameneko 04:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless of course said user was dumb. More particularly if they are also deaf. Chris 23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the use of multiple -N templates is allowed. That, and you aren't required to use an -N template if you don't fit in the category. -Nameneko 04:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no point in this being in the main template space. If a user wants to have it in his user page, he can always subst it. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it's not a nonsense concept. There are people who are not clearly native speakers of any language: two friends of mine for example speak many languages fluently but none natively. That being said, it is true that if you don't have native command of any language you can just use xx-3 and xx-4 templates of the languages you do speak, and allow the absence of an xx-N template to speak for itself. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  So they didn't have any ability in any language as children? "Native" refers to status rather than ability. While some people around my city clearly have difficult with reading and writing English, it is still their native language, regardless of the fact that they're not particularly good at its grammar. Chris 13:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Woo! Didn't manage to destroy the entire page this time. 13:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, to be pedantic, my very good mate is not a native speaker of any language. Both of his parents are profoundly deaf, so his first language is Auslan, despite having working ears. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course they had language ability as children but after years of not using that language they lost native speaker competence. Some people in your city may not have a firm grasp of standard English, but that doesn't mean they're not native speakers of the local nonstandard variety of English, and I'm sure they're flawless users of its grammar. Literacy has nothing to do with it, since written language isn't language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm confused. You open as if you're about to counter my argument, and then reinforce it ... Chris 02:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  From what you wrote, I got the impression that you thought my saying there are people who are not native speakers of any language referred to people who do not use the standard variety of a language, or people who are semi-literate. Otherwise, why would you have mentioned native speakers with limited literacy and those who are "not particularly good at...grammar"? I wanted to make it clear that the people I was talking about do not have problems with the prescriptive rules of "grammar" nor are they semi-literate (indeed both of them have Ph.D.s and write English flawlessly), and that literacy in general has nothing to do with linguistic competence. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The point still stands that they are not without a native language, since actual competency is neither here nor there. My point was that people who speak poor English locally (please do not confuse local dialect with the patently incorrect - "You knows it" is incorrect, "I'll have it again" instead of "I'll have it later" is dialect) are still native English speakers, regardless of their actual level of competency. Local variety doesn't really come into it, since whether it be Estuary English, Valleys English, or Northern English, it is still English. Ultimately, IMO these templates (and associated categories) are for identifying people with a language in common, rather than dividing them. Chris 17:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with everything you said. I still don't understand why you even brought up the topic of semi-literate people and people "not good at grammar" in your original post, since they have nothing to do with the question of people with no native language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsense. If a person does not have a true native language, just use the 1/2/3/4 levels as to the appropriate language(s). --Nlu 12:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as templatecruft. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you truly grew up in a language-free environment, then use use -4 through -0 as needed, and leave the native blank. If you learned sign language natively and are upset you're not a native speaker, just use the sign language template as your native "tongue" and carry on, my wayward son. Lord Bob 04:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless, -[0-4] templates are more apt. Creates some ambiguity in that perhaps this user does not know any language(or speaks no language). Unsigned comment by User:Gxti at 00:03, 29 October 2005 UTC
• Weak delete. This is not as meaningless as it might sound:

[oh maaan, I have been told numerous times that my Arabic is rough, I know my German is rough and now my English is rough. I blame my parents for moving me around every 5 years. I need a mother-tongue. Should I try Esperanto??]

(Salam Pax)

Another example would be someone grown up in a community only speaking an unofficial vernacular dialect and has not a perfect grasp of any standard language. Nevertheless, I really can't see the utility of this template, as such a person may simplily use a BabelBox without any xx-N template.--Army1987 09:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obsolete navbox. Links together a series of articles that are now merged into List of Breath of Fire II characters. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I suppose, although I would like to note that the character page is rather enormous. --Dalkaen^T/C 10:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in the process of being cleaned up. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recently created, and presently unused, image copyright template. In my opinion, this is a close cousin of the banned "with permission" images, as clause 3) requires: "this picture is used only to illustrate an encyclopedic article about the subject, or in which the subject is significantly refered to". In other words it is an attempt to limit image use and reuse to only encyclopedias, which goes against the spirit of free image use. I understand why it was created, but generally believe it is a bad idea. Dragons flight 17:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I created this template specifically for those who wish to contribute images to wikipedia, and proper reusers of wikipedia content, but only for use in a context similar to wikipedia or a wikipedia fork or mirror. This makes the image freely available -- the template quite explicitly allows commercial use, but would not allow the image to be, for example, used in an advertisement with no relevance to its inital context. It would not limit reuse to encyclopedias, as a reuser might use only a single article, or use content from wikipedia to create a sigle-purpose page on a web site that could none the less be considered "encyclopedic". I think this template is well within wikipedia image policy, and it is certianly much more free than fair use and "promotional" images. I also think this template will encourage many content owners to upload and allow us to use many images we might well not otherwise get. The template is curently unused because it is relatively new and has not been popularized, but I suspect it will be used significantly in future. It does have some aspects in common with the now disapproved "with permission" templates, but those were disapproved specifically because their permission did not run to mirrors and other proper reusers, particularly commercial mirrors. The license granted by this template explicitly runs to all such users. Keep this template. DES ^(talk) 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am philosophically opposed, as per Wikipedia:Five Pillars and m:Foundation Issues, to crafting licenses that are, in effect, as narrow as can be tolerated by ourselves and our reusers. The object, at least in my mind, is to make information free and available for creative reuse and adaptation, not merely to create an encyclopedia that can be copied for free. It also occurs to me that this license could be read as prohibitting derivative versions, which would make it unwelcome for the same reasons that cc-nd is disallowed. Might we be able to acquire more content by narrowing our licensing conditions? Certainly, but I don't think it is worth narrowing our notion of freedom for the sake of more images. Oh, and I don't agree that confining images to "encyclopedic" contexts is more free that fair use, frankly it strikes me as less so. Dragons flight 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I might add that the related {{Limited Use-person}} was created for pictures of individuals, but is particularly aimed at user-page images, while allowing mirrors that wish to copy user pagess to do so freely. DES ^(talk) 19:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I should also add that I am open to suggestions for rewording or revising. What i am trying to do with this is strike a balance between the nearly complete openness that comes with a GFDL license, and the much greater restrictions that come with fair use, or the effectively total restriction that comes when a user is simply unwilling to license in any form we support. Soemthing like this might be used for the ESA images (now subject to complex discussions, as I understand matters). It seems to me that an image's creator might well be willing to have it freely reused to illustrate the subject of the image, but not in quite different contexts. and that that limited willingness is somethign that we should, insofar as possible consistant with our basic purporse (to create a freely reusable and accessible encyclopedia) enable and support. I was also reactioning to the depage on the deleted {{user-page image}} (I may have the exact name wrong) which effectively restricted rights to wikipedia uses. That prevented reuse, and was properly deleted, IMO. But aI think that htere can be a line between reasoanble and proper reuse, and unreasonable reuse. For example, i put my picture up on my userpage with a varient of this license. I did so because i think it helps to build the encyclopedia to have images of the contributors aviailable, where they are willing. (And if ther should evenr be an actual article about me -- which i rather doubt -- the image would be appropriate there, also. But there are contexts in which i would not be willing for the image to be used, and I think I ought to be able to have it avaialbe on wikipedia for proper purposes, without giving up the right to prevent such uses. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Because it is unused. It looks like significant policy discussion is needeed to get approval of the license which it represents. (SEWilco 21:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete: Non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am a new Wikipedia contributer (follow links on my user page to see my photos and links to the articles I have added them to) who would like to comment from the viewpoint of someone who makes his living as a (paid) content creator. The licenses that W has deemed acceptable virtually guarantee that the images that people are willing to donate to W will be mediocre. I am going through the unpleasant process of trying to find a compromise between several inimical forces that affect the quality of the content that I am willing to donate to W. In my own case my "mistake" (encouraged by several Wikipedians with whom I had early contact) was to upload images of a very high resolution to W. On the one hand there is my desire to help further a project that appeals to the idealist in me. On one of the other hands is the fact that no license W allows images to be licensed which provides the sort of control over the use of the image that content creators expect in any other situation. When I showed the license I am using to my attorney she practically locked me in her office and wouldn't let me out until I had promised to remove the images I had uploaded. When I explained that I didn't think that was possible, she suggested in the strongest terms that I never ever make another contribution of any kind to W. Well, lawyers are lawyers and I pay her to look out for my interests. (If information wants to be free, it hasn't had a chat with my attorney.) The problem with what I had done was supply high-resolution, print-ready content for free and with almost no conditions. If at some point in the future someone should want to license one of my photos (I'm not a professional photographer, but have made a bit of money on the sided from such licensing) they most likely would balk if that photo were already licensed with any of the W licenses. I have tried to reach a compromise by requesting that the images I have uploaded be replaced with duplicates that are of lower resolution. I still probably could not license any of these photos simply because they are on/in W, but it seemed to me an acceptable way to provide W with a good quality image (still in a higher resolution than most in use here) and at least make some effort to hold out the possibility that I might be able to sell the rights to the image by providing a high-resolution version to a client. I have been seeing all of your eyes rolling for some time know. With a few notable exceptions, the basic attitude here is "Ha ha--you screwed yourself. Too bad." Well, too bad for W as well. Since photography is only a sideline of mine, I don't feel too bad about essentially destroying the commercial value of some of my images. I suppose that the warm and fuzzy feeling I get by donating my work is supposed to make me feel OK about that. Call me selfish, but it doesn't. At least, not quite. I am holding up my impulse to contribute to W to scrutiny. If I decide that it is not worth it to me to continue to contribute, I will stop, as now seems likely. The thing that would make me enthusiastic about contributing would be a licensing scheme that would allow me to have enough control over the use of my images so I don't feel like I have turned them over to a group of people who don't understand how creative people make their living, and could care less. That's the feeling I have now. I do think you need something that would let producers of high quality work feel comfortable about putting it on W. You don't have that now. And I suspect that's why so many of the photos currently on W are so mediocre. They may be produced by people for whom photography is a hobby and who perhaps just get a thrill from seeing something they made on the web. Or they are the cast-offs of more talented artists who realise there will be no market for them and who have saved their best shots for comercial purposes. I don't really know, and I don't have the solution. But I hope I have made my case that you have a problem. The proposed license may be part of the solution. JShook | Talk 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JShook, I recognize your dilemma, but please consider that this is the entire purpose of Wikipedia, to have a encyclopedia of free content, including images. For more on the background of this movement, please read about Free software, Free content, and the GNU Project. It is your right to decide how your copyrighted material is licensed. If you do not agree with the GFDL or other free-use licences (some of the Creative Commons for example), then please don't make those contributions here. If you no longer wish to have your images included in Wikipedia, feel free to list them for deletion. Wikipedia is not obligated to remove them since you have licensed your images under the GFDL or similar license, but the author's wishes are generally honored. Be aware that while your image was on Wikipedia under the GFDL license, others may already be using your image in compliance with the GFDL outside Wikipedia. Finally, I dispute the fact that high-quality images will not be uploaded to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Featured images. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There are certainly some fine images at the URL you provide. I didn't look at all of them, but of the ones I checked they were all usable at screen resolution only. It would not be possible to use them for print unless you are satisfied with images 2 inches across or so. So by uploading low-resolution images, the contributors have effectively limited their use to Wikipedia and any screen-resolution derivatives. The resolution of the images acts as a de facto license prohibiting their use in print. This is the compromise I am trying to implement with the images I have already uploaded--switching out the high-resolution images with screen resolution versions (which are still of higher resolution than many I saw at the Wikipedia:Featured images page.) JShook | Talk 16:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• JShook has made some valid points, some of which I am preocuppied myself. I don't mind donating any picture I've taken to Wikipedia, but the licensing is too open, and I'm very uncomfortable with that, which made me stay away from the "Upload file" link for the most part. Keep pending further discussion of the issue. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, why would any original creator of work contribute to Wikipedia? I don't see any reason at the moment. None of this discussion has convinced me that it is a good thing for anyone to do. JShook | Talk 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly delete. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. -Splash^talk 22:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't allow images with usages restricted in this manner, except for fair use images. It's really as simple as that. If you find Wikipedia too open for your work, then don't donate it. There is a reason it is a "free" encyclopedia.--Fastfission 02:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as this flatly contradicts the spirit under which Wikipedia operates, and the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. Either contribute to Wikipedia under the GFDL, or don't contribute at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an attempt to change legal status of Wikipedia contributions by creating a template. Jkelly 18:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and allow recreation if Foundation approves of this sort of use-with-permission. --Tabor 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Licenses which restrict the use of content are incompatible with Wikipedia. Rhobite 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-free. dbenbenn | talk 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Includes at least Template:Voteapprove/Template:Votesupport/Template:Voteyes (a speedy candidate), Template:Votemove, Template:Votereverse, Template:Votedelete, Template:Voteneutral, Template:Voteoppose/Template:Voteno (another speedy candidate), and Template:Votecomment.)

A terrible idea that just keeps on getting terribler. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose for these templates' ancestor. Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a powerpoint presentation, and the templates are an unnecessary server drain. Note also that voting-on-afd-via-template has been discussed and thoroughly rejected before (see Wikipedia talk:Survey guidelines#Voting via templates). —Cryptic (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It doesn't seem to be used much. (SEWilco 03:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• lol... Delete. The images take time to load and are unnecessary. There could be a template for the delete part but why bother? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Discouragement of vote creep, such as Reverse alternate merge except feminine conjunctions. Covered in previous discussions as well as Template talk:Vote. (SEWilco 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• {{Vote_and_all_derivatives}}Delete - nice thought SEWilco. ∴ here…♠ 03:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. This is not what we have templates for. Especially the {{votedelete}}-template should go, since the deletion debates are supposed to be more about discussion and less about voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• While the images are a welcome break from the endless digital ink, they're a strain. Delete or subst if anyone wants to keep them in their user space. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all harmless. Better delete all these elementary schools off Wikipedia ;).  Grue  06:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all As above. Simply ridiculous to delete them as it's just making it harder from people to use them. If someone wanted to use it they would just make a sub page on their userpage and therefore the strain on the server would be the same. It's not solving any problems, just needlessly hassling people and constricting their voting freedom. --Fir0002 07:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. It's not about the votes, and how on earth would this constrict anyone's voting freedom, anyway? So somebody has to actually think for a couple of seconds and type in the actual words they want to say, rather than fall back on a pre-programmed response? Good! These templates cause yet more server load, encourage mass voting by rote, and reduce what are supposed to be discussions to mere multiple choice polls. Ugh. Utter and total delete. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, and speedy delete {{Voteapprove}} as a recreation of {{support}} (which, amazingly enough, has also been recreated and should also be speedy deleted!). BlankVerse ∅ 10:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can something independently created be a re-creation? (SEWilco 17:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• For the same reasons as discussed at length before, delete. Uncle G 11:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If there are people willing to use it, then it's ok to allow them to. Also, the example of Template:Support used in the commons shows that templates do not discourage discussion. If people are allowed to use custom signatures, then why not custom voting tags? Halibutt 12:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People may be allowed to use templates in signatures, but it is very strongly discouraged: so strongly that some people point it out in a negative light on RfA. -Splash^talk 12:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet this is but your oppinion and not a wikipedia rule, is it. Halibutt
• Nibble to bits by a million rabid meekats. Or just delete, as you see fit. Haven't we deleted this one a few times already? - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You don't prefer the established Crush by elephant!? (SEWilco 14:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete all. A totally unnecessary innovation. -- ChrisO 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and delete again. Particularly on the frequently-viewed and frequently-edited pages on which these templates are likely to appear, they are a waste of space and bandwidth. Take pity on our users without broadband. Oh, and stop recreating validly deleted templates. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy-delete all as re-creation of a bad idea. --Carnildo 22:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Not speedy-worthy IMO, but the exact same argument holds here as it did for other deleted templates. -Sean Curtin 02:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 05:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all.--Pamri • Talk 12:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for the same reasons stated on the TFD for Template:Support. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Wikipedia expects that every editor will do his duty to keep the site from turning into Livejournal. Rhobite 00:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete thoroughly. — Dan | Talk 00:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. - SimonP 03:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. — Instantnood 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These templates serve no useful purpose and have a neagtive impact on Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 17:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. violet/riga (t) 17:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve, making a good visual impression counts for a lot even with the added burden. Plus, its okay to be POV as you like as these would not ever appear in the article namespace. Perhaps, there can be an automated way of counting votes using these templates as a tool? -- Zondor 18:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the latest issue of the Wikipedia Signpost: Due to increasing loads, the image server has become progressively more sluggish over time. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Waste of resources, discouragement of discussion. Xoloz 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without reservations. Broken S 18:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This template is way too big, is a red link farm, and is unnecessary because of List of New York state highways I point to the deletion of the Virginia state highways template as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are ways and means of making it smaller. Smaller type, utilising the full width of the page instead of a fixed number of compartments, etc. Chris 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Massive collection of redlinks that are meaningless numbers for almost everybody. BlankVerse ∅ 10:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a list would be far more useful. - SimonP 20:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a template should not dominate a page the way this one does. A link to the list would be more useful. David D. (Talk) 05:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article is using this rather in-your-face template. I suggest merging it into Template:Cleanup-rewrite. -- Beland 04:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is supposed to fill in a specific niche: You come upon an article; you're not familiar with the subject area, so you have no idea whether the article is in need of Template:Cleanup-context (or some other cleanup template) or if the article is just straight nonsense. I'm not surprised the template is not frequently used: its primary function is to be replaced with another template by somebody who knows more about the subject area. (I admit this could be made clearer within the template itself.) Thanks,
  Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's not what the text of the template says. It says that the article is nonsense, not that it may or may not be nonsense. If a subject expert is needed, it could be tagged {{expert}}. If you don't understand the article and don't want to say it needs a complete rewrite, wouldn't {{confusing}} be appropriate? -- Beland 10:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, abrasive and needlessly biting (especially since this will hit new users with unusual frequency). Also, the one article it's used on isn't even nonsense! (Although that article does lack context and could probably be deleted on that basis.) Nonsense is defined as "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." How an expert could be expected to help with it, I don't know. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now, no articles are using it *ahem*. Chris < 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone is unfamiliar with a subject to the extent that he/she is unable to differentiate between patent nonsense and a legitimate article in need of cleanup, he/she is in no position to declare that the "article appears to be nonsensical" (thereby accusing its author of vandalism). The template's creator stated above that it serves as a means of consulting "somebody who knows more about the subject area," but this can be accomplished with far greater efficiency via other means. (Leave a note on the talk page of a user who has made substantial edits to a related article.) When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. The insertion of this template marks the assumption of bad faith (placing the onus on a third party — not even the article's author — to counter a potentially false allegation of wrongdoing). —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, --Masssiveego 08:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many times I have encountered work that could have used this template. 172 | Talk 15:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template is used more frequently than you think; articles receive it and then get cleaned up. I've done about a dozen of them. Why would we consider deleting a template in active use? "Nonsense" and "patent nonsense" are two different concepts; don't confuse the two. If someone doesn't like the wording, change it to be nicer (the implicit threat of deletion, for example, is probably not helpful). Demi ^T/_C 07:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly because we have a proliferation of cleanup tags, and we don't want to make it too hard for taggers and cleaners to find each others' articles. Take a peek at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. -- Beland 10:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for sake of consistency with consideration of Template:Limited_Use below, for the same reasons. --Tabor 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly delete. I reproduce my comment from below for consistency. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. Everything we do here ourselves we give away freely; if your work is not compatible with that, you need not contribute it. I note that compared to the template below, the word "encyclopedic" has been omitted, which is interesting, but makes no difference to the GFDL status. -Splash^talk 19:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that the people tagging their uploads as PD, CC-by-sa, or fairuse are not making valid license choices? Please clarify. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you upload something to which you hold the copyright, it is licensed under the GFDL, regardless of how else you tag it. You can also tag it in other ways, but the GFDL is always there: those who upload with cc-by-sa and the like are multi-licensing, not single licensing under their chosen tag. The presumption of this template on the other hand, is to upload something to which you hold the copyright but to not do so under the GFDL, an action that, under current policy, cannot be taken, as stated clearly on Special:Upload. Which is to say that the template is extremely misleading: you can tag with it sure, but I can then soundly ignore it and use the image in whatever way I like anyway. -Splash^talk 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that if you want to upload a file with a free, non-GFDL license, there's always the Wikimedia Commons. --Golbez 07:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, same reasons as other template. Rhobite 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extension. Nominator failed to add tfd to the template. Decision should be delayed for a few more days although delete seems likely. RedWolf 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This template was deleted by User:David Gerard and then undeleted by User:DESiegel. I agree with David (Gerard), who stated [1] that this template is "...a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View." Carbonite | Talk 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• NPOV is not up for a vote. Why do you people seem to think it is? - David Gerard 11:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Which David do you agree with? :) My undeltion does not seem to ahve been successful, at least I still can't see the earlier versions. I undeleted because this was delted with no process or consensus at all, and because the last TfD on this had a keep result. I agree that encouraging edit wars and PoV disputes is a bad idea. Abstain pending furhter debate on the merits of this template. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, per Carbonite and David Gerard. Further existence of this template is poisonous to Wikipedia and immediate deletion is called for. Process is good for general cases, but isn't required when something this contrary to our core principles appears. Unfocused 17:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not speedy. Forks are evil, but instead of deleting this template out-of-process we can just fix any situation that it ends up being used in, until it's deleted. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV beats "process" - David Gerard 11:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good idea in principle, but I would like to see how you would fix the situation in all instances of its usage by User:Instantnood. See what is happening in the latest attempt by a well-intention admin to resolve them: User talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation.--Huaiwei 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Unfocused. I don't really see the merits of this template, and it has caused more trouble than it was meant to prevent. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. A very useful template to halt edit warring, and possibly, bring the parties to discussion. Better guideline is necessary to state clearly which of the two versions should be displayed (e.g. based on what the articles were like before the disputes, in other words, based upon the original intents). Better enforcement is also necessary to avoid individuals like user:Huaiwei who ignored what the template said - " Please do not revert to the other disputed version unless it is decided on the discussion page that this should be done. " - and insisted to have their preferred versions displayed. The template tagged on the article should better be as minimal as possible, and the links to the other version and to the diffs can be provided on the talk page by a sister template. — Instantnood 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far more often, the template is used inappropriately. For example, you tagged [2] National pastime due to a disagreement about how Hong Kong should be classified. In practice, this is almost always the manner in which this template is used. I've seen almost no evidence of it halting edit wars or helping parties to reach consensus. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean I should not have applied the template? In your opinion, what should I do instead to stop the POV pushers like user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat who refused to follow how things were presented prior to their contentious edits? — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes, I believe that you shouldn't have applied the template in that instance. That dispute was about one line of text. I honestly have no idea about the POV of you, Huaiwei or STC, but I do know that placing the twoversions template on the article wasn't going to settle any dispute. This template shouldn't even be an option for settling a dispute. We need to work on getting one NPOV article, not two different POV articles. Carbonite | Talk 19:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Without the template that one line would be reverted back and off, for I had no idea how I could get user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat to get along with the way presented prior to their edits, while discussion was in process. — Instantnood 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nice try, but dont blame the system for individual faults.--Huaiwei 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What else can be done? Yes I can understand how frustated you must be feeling now that a Requests for comment and two arbcoms (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al., Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2) hasent managed to solve your problem. Poor individual admins who invest time and energy to try to resolve has faltered one after another, with the latest hanging in the balance with a threat like "I have no comment unless the first steps are done". But I sure hope you are not demanding for this template's existance by saying Carbonite cant give you a solution to your problem. Like I constantly remind, learn to take responsiblity and ownership of the problems you are part of, and quit constantly expecting others to solve them for you.--Huaiwei 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are not two ArbCom cases, the second part was a reopening for the close for the first part was procedurally and technically incorrectly performed. Please also take a look at what the arbitrators have said about user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat: [1] [2]. — Instantnood 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited there is no reason to expect people will follow how things are presented prior to their edits. Nobody owns the text, intent or title of an article and they can and will change. It's a wiki, get over it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Obliterate We have {{POV}} for such things, whereas this template implies that you are looking at The Wrong Version. Chris 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. User:Instantnood's himself has actually proven to be one of the worse abusers of this template, and for him to bring it up for undeletion and then to support its continued existance here demonstrates the extent to which individuals who circumvent the mediation and dispute resolution process can go to archieve their aims. Not a single usage of this template by instantnood has resulted in resolution of any kind, with all of them continuing to remain in their respective pages till this template was deleted. Plenty of these pages resulted in worse edit warring (not just over the version to be displayed as instantnood claims, but much more so over the usage of the template itself), with some even being on page protection just to preserve this template. Even now that the template has been deleted, he continues to add a "legacy" of its existance with "dispute notices" in [3] and [4]. A new revert war now erupts between us over the retention of this notice. As what User:Calton describes in [5], "nice try: it's the twoversions tag in different clothing".--Huaiwei 18:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of my usage of this template involved disputes with user:Huaiwei, who insisted to drop the template, and to display his preferred version, i.e. ignored what the template said. To my experience, that made discussion not quite possible, therefore better enforcement is needed to avoid people who ignore what the template said. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As also mentioned here [6], lets get the facts straight via a simple chronological recount of how a typical usage of the template results in when it involves you. First, an edit war erupts. At the end of three reverts and with the page still not showing the version you prefer, you pop in a "twoversions" tag after reverting again to your version. When I proceed to remove this tag by reverting back to my version, you revert it back to your version with the template, saying "the twoversions tag is not meant to endorse any version", and insists I am "flouting its intentions by reverting the displayed version". And again, another round of reverts ensue over whether the template should appear at all or not. All this time, the talkpages remains empty. Obviously at this stage, the template has not worked, and at least it is plain obvious to me, it is also being abused. The same scenario is repeated across subsequent disputes we have, sometimes reaching the attention of admins. And that was when folks like myself told admins that you are abusing the template not to stop edit wars, but to basically justify your version irrespective of how you claim otherwise. Pressurised, you proceeded to display the tag this time on the preferred versions of your opponents, myself incluced, but only in some cases and only after extremely heated exchanges. Some pages ended up with your prefered version, some with mine. Subsequently, you lost your patience (or got a shot of viagra), and suddenly starts reverting them to your version again (and still with the template) when you think no one else is looking. Another round of editwars breaks out over which version is to be displayed (the only edit war you bothered to admit above). And the talkpages? Still starkly empty. Has any disputed pages been resolved? No. Has any of the templates abused by you been successfully removed after a compromise has been found? Zelch. Need I say more about the feasibility of this template, and its potential for abuse? Claiming that the template should stay because it didnt work with individuals like me who "ignore it" is laughable at best.--Huaiwei 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always display a version according to the original intents of the articles prior to the disagreements, regardless of my or anybody's preference. As for the case of the lists of airports and lists of companies in the PRC, see what user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat had done to enforce their point of view, although they knew it's controversial and they were igniting fire: [7] [8] [9] [10]. — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your claims are getting old. It has long been proven that you did not use the template in the above manner until you faced mounting pressure, and it is equally clear that you subsequently used the "original version" excuse to legitimise your prefered display versions. I am not too sure how many actually buy your claims, but it certainly did not sound logical to Dmcdevit, for one.--Huaiwei 19:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • As mentioned elsewhere, I have never used original intent as an excuse, as reflected by my edits to articles such as List of railways in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). — Instantnood 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is that article supposed to support your claim? "Never" is a very strong word begging for complete referencing to support it.--Huaiwei 20:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also a previous nomination. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now why should I be surprised that STC is the nominator! And now we know who are the ones with foresight and who have been assuming good faith? Both virtues in themselves. :D--Huaiwei 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Is there any possible way to have a list of articles previous tagged with this template, so that we can know about its usage like the special:whatlinkshere tool? — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you that list, are you pretending not to see it? [11] I sure hope you're not pretending you can't see it, cuz you edited that very edit of mine. [12] SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Please kindly check the time stamps 18:34 18:38. I requested here 4 minutes before I saw your list there. — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Delete with scrubbing bubbles, for the same reason as Huaiwei. Instantnood, who uses this template more than anyone else on Wikipedia, simply DOES NOT EVER discuss it, he clams up until poked, prodded and provoked. It doesn't stop his edit warring, nor does it bring him to discussion. This template is just an endrun around content forking. Furthermore David Gerard was absolutely right to go rouge and delete. You can't vote on NPOV. The very proposed policy that led to this template to be created originally was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, the templates continued life was a loophole of TfD voting instead of real discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:SchmuckyTheCat had been joined force with user:Huaiwei to display their preferred versions and ignores what the template said. See also my comment above. — Instantnood 18:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Joined forces"? If there is concensus that a user is abusing the system, then obviously there will be similar efforts to mitigate it. I suppose by this comment, you are saying this template should stay because two individuals are "joining forces"?--Huaiwei 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I were the one who abused it, the two lists would not be protected by user:Thryduulf (from Wikipedia:requests for page protection) in that way. — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • He protected it on the believe that you are using the twotemplate tag in good faith. Are you able to get him to comment here that he reviewed all your edits and does not think you are abusing it?--Huaiwei 19:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not speedy. per Nickptar. --Tabor 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE. I seldom support applications of WP:IAR, but this one by David Gerard was justified. When the original TfD debate was held, this template was relatively new and seemed like a reasonable idea. Since then, its overwhelmingly counterproductive nature has been proven time and again. Rather than being used by an objective third party (who merely wishes to halt edit warring) or by an involved party who adds it to the other party's version, it typically is inserted by an edit warrior who also reverts to his/her version (either simultaneously or immediately prior). He/she then acts as though the template is backed by some sort of authority that renders the first associated version sacrosanct for the time being. And even if this template is used as intended, it actually discourages long-term resolution (by essentially creating a fork, thereby reducing the incentive to gauge consensus and/or discuss possible compromises). It also uglifies articles and drags readers into editors' disputes. This simply is a terrible template, and it mustn't be allowed to continue harming Wikipedia. —Lifeisunfair 19:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly why I suggested to have better guidelines and enforcement to avoid abuse. What we now have at Wikipedia:two versions is obviously not enough. There are many more templates such as {{mergedisputed}}, {{NPOV}}, {{disputed}}, {{bias}}, etc., that also drags readers into editors' disputes. Information on editors' disputes are, however, useful for readers in determining reliability of articles. Many under category:Wikipedia maintenance (e.g. {{not verified}}, {{confusing}}, {{importance}}) may possibly uglify articles. — Instantnood 19:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• After reading the above debate, and recalling my one interaction with this template (during the debate over the spoiler-warnign templates IIRC) I have come to the conclusion that this tempalte is ill-advised. as User:Lifeisunfair says, it sounds like a good idea. if its use could be somehow restricted to uninvolved people sincerly trying to stop edit wars, it might be a good tool in some case. it doesn't sound as if that has been the most common result. Therefore, delete this template, but do not speedy delete it. I still don't see any reason why an out-of-process undiscussed deletion was needed for thsi -- there seems no problem in getting significant numbers of people to agree to delete it at this time. DES ^(talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because putting it to a vote gives the impression that NPOV is up for voting - David Gerard 11:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it makes sense to have a large number of templates for article content disputes so that the right one is available. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Used correctly, it can reduce the damage in sterile edit wars. If someone's abusing it, RFC him, tar and feather him, crush him by elephant, whatever, but that's no reason to delete the template. Plenty of other templates get applied incorrectly too. —Cryptic (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously. This template is only used to give extra credence to one side of an edit war, and tell the other side to STFU. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since I'm not an administrator, I have zero idea what this template's text was. However, based on what's been said here, I assume that it left one version as the main page and placed an alternate version on a sub page. The problem with that approach (if that is what the template does) is that it gives the version on the main page a perceived degree of superiority. If such an approach is going to work at all, it will need to place all alternate versions (while rare, I have seen three-cornered edit wars before) on sub pages and make the main page just a protected stub pointing to them. I'm not certain how feasible such an approach would be, but the concept sounds intriguing. Caerwine 23:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming a Monobook skin, you'll find a "history" button atop the page. Chris 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The template adds a link to the other version from the page's history. Aside from the arguably inappropriate nature of content forking, your suggestion would basically hide articles from the site's readers. That's entirely unacceptable. —Lifeisunfair 02:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Unacceptable maybe, but less so than a template whose only use is to legitimise one side of an edit war. No amount of "This is not an endorsement of this version" can change this. If neither side is willing to play nicely, then neither side gets their version shown in main article space. Can you say fairer than that? Chris 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Both options are unacceptable. I agree with your criticism of the template, but I believe that your Caerwine's alternative is even worse. The concept of removing an article from its correct location might seem like a fair way to treat the editors involved in the dispute, but it's unfair to readers (and patently unprofessional). And of course, it would impede one of the core functions of a wiki: the ability to edit pages. (Which forked version would someone edit? Neither? Both/all? The one that he/she prefers?) —Lifeisunfair 04:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above? Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons. Chris 04:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above?"

Yes, I'm sorry about that. When I replied to Caerwine, I inadvertently copied-and-pasted your username (from the reply above mine) into the edit summary. When I actually replied to you, I was thinking that you were the same person to whom I already had replied. Additionally, I apologize for splitting your signature (also inadvertent).

"Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons."

Those reasons are not obvious to me. Could you please elaborate? —Lifeisunfair 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in such disputes are generally protected, rendering the question of which version to edit worthless. Chris 17:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this template used on numerous unprotected pages. The fact that it can be inserted by a non-admin renders this inevitable.

Also, isn't the theoretical idea behind this template (and Caerwine's variation) to halt edit wars without the need for more drastic intervention? (If the involved parties agree to stop reverting — with or without the use of a special template — there's no need for page protection.) —Lifeisunfair 18:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After having read the above discussion, I'll go ahead and vote Delete on this template. I still think a variant of the {Protected} template that gave direct access to the competing versions might be useful, but it's clear that the method that this template used has been tried and found wanting. Caerwine 19:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No need for WP:IAR or a speedy here. The previous TfD was ages ago, the only justification I can imagine was that we weren't trusted to make the correct decision this time. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In my experience this template is not used well. - SimonP 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Do Not Speedy. This template is a bad idea (anti-NPOV at its core -- the neutrality principle needs synthesis, not forking, to succeed), and it is almost exclusively used for purposes even worse than the bad idea at its core. Xoloz 03:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Radiant and Aaron Brenneman. The various "disputed" templates are much better, and don't give any legitimacy to edit warring. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. perfectly acceptable on a case by case basis. zen master T 16:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fast company this template keeps: see the original use Zen master attempted to make of it over at Conspiracy theory, where his personal impressions are being undue weighted out by other editors (myself included). More evidence for the argument Lifeisunfair gives for a Delete? Adhib 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for discouraging consensus-building, encouraging forking, and for asking an article's reader to do the work editors are supposed to take responsibility for. Jkelly 19:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This defeats the whole idea of collective editing.Cberlet 21:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template has been abused far too often to justify keeping it around. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Workshop. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Carbonite, David Gerard, Jkelly, Cberlet, Kelly Martin. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete template fosters edit wars.Borisblue 01:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Everyone please take a look at a proposal for {twoversions} on talk, at the very least there should be a transition period, right? zen master T 01:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why - it doesn't appear to currently be in use on any actual articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently someone must've depopulated it. Halibutt
    • Me - David Gerard 11:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I saw it used once and it really helped in forcing the people to cool down a tad. Halibutt 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Stronger keep than all the delete votes put togather <= let's see if prefixing your votes with "strong" actually works, if not, I trust we can all agree to stop doing that as a pointless redundancy. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I assume a person of your level of experience is aware, this is not a simple majority vote count. When applied in a prudent manner, the prefixes "strong" and "weak" can assist the closing admin in gauging the nature of the consensus (or lack thereof). —Lifeisunfair 14:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong is VFD shorthand for "There's no way i'm going to change my position," Weak is short for "I am much more likely than usual to change my position on this subject"; things like 'Strongest possible ... indicate the same; it's not part of the vote or part of the comment or reason for deletion or keeping, and not to directly influence the outcome, but it is a message to others interested in the debate about the editor's level of conviction that that's the right way to go, and can have an indirect effect on the debate: The nature of the modifiers used to be explained briefly at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, apparently it's been lost in a recent rewrite. --Mysidia (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the explanation was removed because it isn't entirely true. We're permitted to use whatever terminology we please to convey our stance on a particular issue. Such a prefix alone should not alter the weight of a vote, but it can help to elucidate the accompanying comments. Again, this is not a simple majority vote count. —Lifeisunfair 09:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Removes an incentive to negotiate; Confuses casual readers; Looks unprofessional. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I used it once successfully in the process of stabilising a particularly "difficult" article, that had been protected for several weeks, and resumed edit-warring immediately after unprotection (of course, all factions accusing each other of POV, so the NPOV/POV template had no effect whatsoever) - The TwoVersions template appeared to be handy to get the discussion to the talk page (which had been unsuccessful with all other templates), and to allow time for elaborating a consensus version of the article on that talk page, which took several days with several contributors. The article in question is unprotected without major difficulties (and without any template) for several months now. As a remark I can add that there appeared to be some problem with the template software at the time, as it did not correctly link to the "other version"; don't know if that problem still exists today, but I'd rather fix that problem than delete the template. --Francis Schonken 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is unwilling to discuss such a dispute until a fork of his/her version has been pushed to the top or linked to via a gigantic, unprofessional banner, he/she should not be permitted to edit the article. —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with David Gerard, Tom Harrison, and others. --Pjacobi 11:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Much abused and ultimately unhelpful. And yes, David Gerard was wrong to unilterally delete. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. While I have chiefly seen it abused, the process made clear how it could be used for dispute management. It may be better than subpages for two texts so divergent that diffs are useless. Its chief problems are
  • It is worded so that abusive editors can read it as a permanent non-admin protection
  • It makes no allowances for a third version; either a proposed compromise or a radically different proposal, and those are, in fact desirable in many conflicts.Septentrionalis 03:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If another tool is created for the purpose of temporary comparison of versions of an article before merger, it should not be speedied on the basis of this discussion. Septentrionalis 03:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A statement of fact cannot be construed as POV -- and the NPOV policy does not justify blanking or deleting (vandalising) the template out of process, that was inappropriate -- if the template is used correctly, it should only appear on an article in an active editing dispute where just two versions of an article are currently in contention; it offers a method of temporarily calming the dispute and allowing other editors to more clearly see what the editing dispute is so that an appropriate compromise can be reached or the dispute can otherwise be resolved. Abuse of the template is another matter, but the template can and should be removed from an article in those cases. --Mysidia (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to serve the same purpose as Template:Not verified, though there's a wide variance in the alarmingness of the banner. It seems to me that these templates and their associated categories should be merged. -- Beland 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I like the more alrming red color better, but with the text from Not verified. I think we want to be clear as possible that an article with such a banner should not be trusted until the issues are dealt with. But, anyway, merge. -- SCZenz 08:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{not verified}} or {{disputed}}. — Instantnood 09:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to {{not verified}} not {{disputed}}. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 19:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Masssiveego 08:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasoning similar to what I posted below regarding {{cleanup-nonsense}}. My objection to this template is not that it's redundant, but that it's added to articles that users merely believe "may contain inaccuracies" (which describes every article). These massive warning templates disparage entire articles' quality in the eyes of readers, and therefore should be limited to situations in which concrete allegations (usually disputed) of major editorial problems exist. It's appropriate to request that an article "be checked for accuracy," but there's absolutely no need to compromise the appearance of a potentially accurate article by advertising this fact. The required consultation can be accomplished via talk pages, and dubious claims can be temporarily removed (pending confirmation). —Lifeisunfair 21:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If a consensus for deletion is not reached, redirect to {{not verified}}. Do not redirect to {{disputed}}, which asserts the existence of a specific dispute (a condition that this template presently states might not exist). —Lifeisunfair 16:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons, first of all it is incorect, images from that source is not PD, they can be used freely provided atribution is given, but they are not public domain. Secondly it's only used on one image, and finaly it's bascaly a duplicate of Template:ABr, wich corectly states that the images are copyrighted, but can be used as long as credit is given. I recomend it's one image be re-tagged ABr after this is deleted. --Sherool 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, I would have nominated if no one else did. Wcquidditch | Talk 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jkelly 18:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. JYolkowski // talk 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new way of proposing a template for speedy deletion without specifing a reason. As none of the WP:CSD apply specifically to templates anyway, this could only be legitimately used under the general criteria (vandalism or nonsense, for example). This is a very rare occurance, and such a mechanism is not needed for it. Delete DES <(talk)</ 00:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, forget that template, I don't want it anymore (I created it). Speedy delete it, and also delete {{d-t-talk}}, the pointer to the talk page. ({{db-t}} could also be tossed if need be, there may or may not be a reason to retain it any longer, it depends). Wcquidditch | Talk 01:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need for a tiny version of {{delete}}; any templates that fall under the general criteria should be orphaned on sight anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted per CSD G7. Titoxd<(?!?) 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Although I support linking to the memorial site from relevant articles, I don't see why we need a template simply for a link. I imagine this template was created to discourage people from creating overly conspicuous or elaborate links to the memorial, but hopefully that is no longer such a pressing problem. Instead of having a template, we should simply encourge editors to create normal links to the memorial from the External links sections of the various articles. That way we're not wasting processor power on generating a link from a template. Kaldari 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I created this to resolve an edit war on Template:Sep11 over the placement of a prominent link to Sep11:Main Page. Some people wanted it in the series box, some people didn't, and most were quite pigheaded about it. Initially it was a box like the other sister project templates (Template:Wikiquote, Template:Commons, etc.), so the link would get the extra prominence that Side 1 wanted, but wouldn't be placed on the same footing as the articles in the series, which is what Side 2 didn't like. I don't care one way or another whether this is deleted or not; both the main edit warriors on the issue are long gone, so I doubt they care too much either. (Though, of course, others might take their place . . . but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.) —Charles P. <(Mirv)</ 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not much debate, but no support for the template in nearly a month, and the edit warriors are apparentl gone. -Splash^talk 17:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really say anything about use that Template:Restricted use doesn't, is used only on one image (which I'm retagging right now). As well, I don't really think we want to encourage uploads of such images by providing a template, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In fact, take out the fair use bit, and this would be a double-whammy as "non-commercial use only" and "by-permission, Wikipedia only". (Both are prohibitted, of course.) Wcquidditch | Talk 01:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no wikipedia-only templates --Monkbel 20:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically transcludes Template:Gamecover with a few parameters at the top to specify source and copyright info. However, the parameters are in such an unintuitive format that it's probably easier just to type them in in the upload box. It's unused to boot, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find it useful and helpful. Patman2648 | talk 21:10 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you ever actually used it though? This template is unused. JYolkowski // talk 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, should use {{Gamecover}}. --Monkbel 20:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This template is overkill. To list a related article, we use a "see also" section towards the bottom. Using indented text at the top is improper format. Furthermore, an article is not part of a series (def: number of objects or events arranged or coming one after the other in succession) if it is not part of the list. This template is being used for articles that are not part of a series (only topically related to the series) and improperly labels them as being part of a series. --Jiang 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree completely with the Jiang. This is also a needless, and unsightly, duplicate of the categorization system. - SimonP 13:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I do not agree, since the articles is used for articles that are part of the series mentioned in the template. If I by accident used this template in an article not part of the series, the template should be removed there (as it was used in the Japanese parties). Furthermore I do not see any harm if used in an article that is part of series. Electionworld 14:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no series to speak of: 1) if there is a series, then can you demonstrate a logical order for the articles? 2) if there is a series, then why do we not use the series template and resort to using this template? In addition, what does this template accomplish that cannot be accomplished with a simple "see also" list towards the bottom? --Jiang 14:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that with many of these articles, there is allready a infobox on the specific person. If the series template would be used, thic could cause problems. But OK, I'll try. Electionworld 15:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • why not use a footer? but this is besides the point. the series you speak of do not exist. these articles follow no logical order. --Jiang 15:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a series. It is logical, but not chronological. Electionworld 16:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categories, navboxes, and See also links already serve any purpose this intrusive template would serve. - A Man In Black <(conspire | past ops) 14:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. I will place the navbox in the article (but there will also be a reaction). Electionworld 15:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThe top of the article is not the place for "See also" links. It is simply clutter.--Mais oui! 14:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an see also link. Furthermore, are we also against the Background|Background and the Main templates? Electionworld 15:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • main template is not placed on the top of the page; background template follows a strict mother-daughter article relationship according to wikipedia:summary style. i don't see how this is not simply a see also link. the series do not exist. you are linking to a related, topical article. --Jiang 15:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a series. It is logical, but not chronological. Electionworld 16:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This template is no longer being used. Electionworld and I are discussing converting the politics templates to footers, so they can be less obtrusive. I will start a discussion at the 'Pump shortly. --Jiang 12:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• {{User sco 0}}
• {{User sco 1}}
• {{User sco 2}}
• {{User sco 3}}
• {{User sco 4}}
• {{User sco N}}

These seem to be used by some of the user-language templates but not by others. And I can't really see why any of them would be used, since thyey are hardly "shortcuts". Who in their right mind would type in {{user sco 1}} rather than simply typing 1? And {{User sco N}} defies even the tenuous logic of having the rest of these as templates - it returns M! Unless there's a perfectly logical reason that I have overlooked, I don't think these should survive. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, they all just seem to be numbers. Unless there's some technical reason for this? -- SCZenz 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that the reason for this is to hook to categories in the Scots Wikipedia. For some bizarre reason, they're using M instead of N for native speakers (even though other languages where the equivalent of "native" does not start with an N still use N). Since there is a parameter {{{level}}}, they'd need to have some way of changing the level. The only way to do this is to wrap it in another template by level. Chris < 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If they were actual user-language templates they would be for speakers of Scots. If someone cares to make them such, then of course keep. But in their current state, delete. --Angr/<tɔk tə mi</ 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They already exist at {{User sco-1}} etc (with hyphens). Grutness...wha? 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until someone knocks some sense into sco:, delete thereafter. Actually, it seems that several languages to this, see the list of ]. Keep until WM policy on how to do this across all Wikipediae can be formed. Chris < 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A possible technical reason: These seem to be for the purpose of mapping our system of language levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, N) to those of other languages. For these templates, it seems that speakers of Scots also use 0-4 for language levels; however, they use 'M' instead of 'N'—apparently preferring mither tung (mother tongue) to native. A better example would be mapping the language levels to Asturian, where {{User ast 1}}, {{User ast 2}}, etc. map the numerals to equivalent words in Asturian. These apparently exist as templates (as opposed to just typing in the translated text/numeral) for more flexible use in templates like {{User language subcategory}}, to create properly-mapped interwiki links on user-language subcategory pages to the corresponding subcategories in other languages. For example, Category:User en-N (which uses the User language subcategory template) would link to the corresponding User en-M subcategory in Wikipaedia Scots. (It doesn't, actually, because the TfD message currently breaks the User language subcategory template when it tries to call {{User sco N}}.) Were these templates to be deleted, the interwiki link would point to the nonexistant subcategory User en-N. I vote a weak keep. These templates certainly have their legitimate uses; however, at least for the specific case with Scots, any breakage resulting from deleting these templates (to my knowledge) would seem to be relatively minimal and could be fixed by making a category redirect on Wikipaedia Scots and editing the User language subcategory template so it doesn't try to re-map the language levels for the Scots interwiki link.—Jeff 03:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category redirects don't work. ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another, one article only type template. This one can only ever be used in Royal Welch Fusiliers and should just be substed into it. --Sherool 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and convert into infobox. FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why keep then? Go right ahread and make a "fuiliers infobox", but once you have done that this template would be obsolete. --Sherool 15:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm the creator of this template (and many similar ones). I've created Template:Infobox British Army regiment to replace them. In retrospect I should have done this when I initially set out to create these for all the regiment articles, but better late than never. I'll list the templates for deletion once I've completed the task. When I do, would it be possible to lump them under one section? SoLando (Talk) 19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they are all of this kind I don't think anyone would mind them being lumped together. Check the history first though, if you are the only one who has edited them you can just put {{db-g7}} on them and bypass TFD altogeter. --Sherool 23:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst/delete or G7 speedy. Chris < 02:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another one of those templates that are only used in one article namely The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. --Sherool 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and convert into infobox. FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst/delete Chris < 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this one was only used in Avram, don't rely see the point in a seperate template for this, I just substed it into the article itself. Some kind of "micronation infobox" template might be in order though if anyone is interested. --Sherool 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's one and only function is to insert a PDF icon into an article, use of fair use images in templates is a big no-no acording to Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. It was only used in 3-4 articles all by the same person, so I just orphanded it because the articles would look extremely ugly with the huge TFD notice for these small icons. If someone wants to replace the image with a free one (some text saying "pdf" maybe) that's fine with me, but this current form has to go. --Sherool 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE I am the user who uploaded the icon. I have no problem with its deletion. Saravask 10:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and note that you can achieve the same functionality other ways, though it wouldn't be completely trivial. Something like this in your monobook.css, though you'll need to tweak it with padding and whatnot:

a[href$=".pdf"] { background-image: url('.../pdficon.png'); }

—HorsePunchKid→龜 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

• Template:Australia Primetime Monday
• Template:Australia Primetime Tuesday
• Template:Australia Primetime Wednesday
• Template:Australia Primetime Thursday
• Template:Australia Primetime Friday
• Template:Australia Primetime Saturday (perhaps - red link added in case the template is created)
• Template:US Primetime Thursday

This is a procedural nomination moved from a misplaced listing on AFD. Bwithh's reasoning there was that "Wikipedia is not a TV guide. also, this is unmaintainable." No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Get rid as soon as possible! We can't have this spammed on the pages of the series and I'm going to remove them from articles as this is clearly not appropriate. If the result is to keep then they could be readded. In some cases there are three templates per article and the problem would just get worse and worse. Have an article about the TV schedules, but not a template on every article for every channel in every country. violet/riga (t) 11:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. unmaintainable, too many templates, not a tv guide, ..... JPD (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There is a US equivalent, and these are useful and interesting templates. I do suggest, however, removing them from foreign television shows, as they just would not scale if that were the case. Ambi 12:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Define "foreign" on an international website........--ElvisThePrince 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"foreign" means the country of broadcast is different from the country of production. --Scott Davis <Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK what about say HBO/BBC co-productions?--ElvisThePrince 01:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikinews:, of course. -- Zondor 12:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who created these templates. I just happen to stumble across Template:US Primetime Thursday when correcting links to Will & Grace. Liking the look of the template, I proceeded to create ones for Australian television and placed the templates on the appropriate pages. Ambi discovered what I was doing and some discussion regarding the templates took place on my talk page. However Chuq then suggested that templates be created for each network rather then each day. I then came up with the following:

>Seven Network Daily Primetime Schedule
<>	<>7:30	<>8:00	<>8:30	<>9:00	<>9:30	<>10:00
<>Sunday	<>??		<>Sunday Night Film
<>Monday	<>The Great Outdoors		<>Grey's Anatomy		<>24
<>Tuesday	<>Dancing with the Stars				<>All Saints
<>Wednesday	<>Beyond Tomorrow		<>Blue Heelers		<>Forensic Investigators
<>Thursday	<>The Mole		<>Las Vegas		<>24
<>Friday	<>Better Homes and Gardens		<>Friday Night Film

This is as far as it went. Now I discover that the templates have been put up for deletion. There is currently no tfd tags on any of the templates except for Sunday and most have been removed from the articles without discussion and without any notification to me.

So, may I suggest a compromise. Lets delete these nightly primetime templates and replace them with the network primetime templates like the example above. This way they can be placed on the article about the network (e.g. Seven Network). Also I agree with Ambi that these templates should only be placed on articles about Australian programmes. How does that sound with everybody?? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. too granular. there is a discussion at User_talk:Ianblair23#Australia_television_templates on this where a weekly template per network is proposed. I'd probably support that. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! posted just after Ianblairs post above. I concur with his proposal. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment templates are not required if they only go on one article (the network). I guess templates are useful if they go on each member channel as well, but I don't know if they are always consistent across states (eg football). --Scott Davis <Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Network-specific tables would be nice, but I agree, they don't need templates. Also, I think it's more usual for the days to run horizontally and the times vertically, but that's a minor nitpick. Anyway, more should have been done before this TfD. Bwithh (the original nominator) should have made an attempt to contact the creator, ie User:Ianblair23. Obviously some work has gone into these. Let's not rush to throw out so much content so quickly. pfctdayelise 13:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the table is only on the network page, it shouldn't be a template. I don't personally see much value in having a table showing what's on on the programme pages, and am not really happy with the half-done solution of only having the table for the country of origin. Also, note that one of the US templates is also listed above - the Australian ones should definitely not be considered separately. JPD (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand his proposal, the template would go on the network page and the articles for all Australian produced shows within that template. In other words, 24 (television) would appear in the template, but it's article wouldn't suddenly get primetime network templates from tons of countries, only the US, while Blue Heelers would get the template from it's Aussie network. — Laura Scudder | Talk 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is 100% correct Laura. How does that sound? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As the one who originated the US Thursday template, I will refrain from voting. I will, however, make the following comments:

1. I created that solely to see how people would react to it, and to see if anyone would pick up and create tables for the other days (again, to judge whether or not people found them useful). I thought the issue was dead when other days didn't pop up, not realizing someone in Australia had picked it up.
2. I fail to see how this is "unmaintainable". Unless a show completely bombs by the end of October, it only requires updating at new season and midseason.
3. I strongly object to whoever removed the templates from the pages before this vote was concluded. That's equivalent to blanking a page and then putting it up for deletion, in my eyes, and that's poor Wikipedia etiquette, also (perhaps) strictly IMO.

Otherwise, I don't care one way or another how this vote goes. Sahasrahla 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unnecessary metadata.--nixie 05:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would prefer the lists stored in Category:TV schedules. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes, they all survived AFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ambi. — Instantnood 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - OK, I have gone ahead and created the following three far more maintainable tempates as a compromise Template:Australia primetime seven, Template:Australia primetime nine & Template:Australia primetime ten. These templates will be placed on the page of the relevant network and on the relevant Australian programme pages. Please delete the above Australian templates that I created. Thankyou -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Testing ground for {{New Jersey}}, obsolete now that it has been merged in. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleted. Titoxd<(?!?) 04:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does there need to be a merge of Mormon and Jewish templates? There's no article using it. ~~ N (t/c) 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is a SPAM/POV template fork. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...ugh. make it go away. Tomer <TALK 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. SlimVirgin <(talk) 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV fork. Jayjg <<(talk)</ 23:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. And maybe start an RfC on whoever created this. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only relates to one article (which although FCA seems dubious) which does not include it; includes an external link and so seems to be an ad. Overall POV. jnothman <talk</ 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this blatant plagiarization of the original Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. In its present form this template is nothing but an obvious attempt to promote a "Mormon's version of Messianic Judaism" and does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is foisting a purely Mormon POV which no-one else agrees with. There already is an article Mormonism and Judaism which is quite enough. A template for this subject is not needed. IZAK 06:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-use is compatible with the GFDL (encouraged, even). Sources should be cited, however. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You miss my point here. It's not the superficial "reuse" of it (no problem if it's "innocent" and accurate). But it's the devious manner at work here, like a "sheep in wolf's clothing" in it's attempt to "over-reach" by trying to unite things that stand in opposition to each other. Mormonism and Judaism are not "partners", as this crazy template would falsely convey, they are more like rivals, if not enemies -- in the religious and spiritual sense. IZAK 07:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woah, man. Chill out. This template conveys the wrong information, and implies the wrong things, and I agree that it's potentially offensive. Delete it for sure. That being said, there's no reason to characterize different religions as enemies. Also, GFDL makes allegations of "copyright infringement" within Wikipedia irrelevant. Attack the template on legitimate grounds, by all means, but the extra stuff isn't necessary. -- SCZenz 17:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not worthwhile for the 1-2 articles it would apply to. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hey, I created it guys. Not trying to offend anyone, simply wanted to place a templete on the article that included topics of both faiths. It was to be frank, an attempt at maintaining a neutral point of view. If it offened anyone why is there no complaint on the discussion page of the actual article? The template would have been removed then and there, as the Mormonism and Judaism article is being written to not offend anyone, and a place where both Mormons and Jews are comfortable reading. From my perspective view, I believed I was allowed to re-use the template under the GFDL, and as far as citing my sources I included a link to the original article and template at the top of the new template. Plagiarization is not even a reasonible complaint. Also, the template is several months old, and these complaints are fairly new. Again, I'd like to stress the point that I am not intrested in offending anyone, nor confict. For these reasons I am have no complaints about its removal. VChapman (4 Nov 05 01:36 UTC)
  • Mormonism is not a form of Messianic Judaism. As a Latter-Day saint, I accept the Jews place in the House of Israel, but do not believe that Messianic Judaism has any authority to even operate as Christs church, neitherless convert individuals into The House of Israel. Mormon belief does however give everyone the right to worship who, how and what they may. Please don't be so quick to associate, what I believe to be, a christian church of mostly gentiles with the LDS faith. It is my personal belief that mormonism is a continuation of the religion. Messianic Judaism has several striking differences with Mormonism, to include the Messianic belief in the christian trinity. Messianic Jews claim to fall under the Tribe of Judah, and thus proclaim themselves as Jewish, whereas Mormons believe they are mostly Ephraim. Although Ephraim and Judah are pitted against each other in the Torah(Bible), they are both Members of the House of Israel, who's reunification is also proficied in the Torah. If you accept the Mormon place in the House of Israel as Ephraim or not is your right, but please remember, worldwide there are just about as many mormons as Jews (+ or - 2 Million or so). As far as the argument that Mormons and Jews are more likely enemies, I want to remind you both faiths, UNDER HEBREW LAW prohibit discriminatiion against the other.(Exedus and 2nd Nephi) I appologize if I offended anyone, but I wanted to dispute the complaint against me that I was attempting to promote Messianic Judaism.
• Delete totally unnecessary. Izehar 17:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blank, orphan, abandoned experiment. Phil | Talk 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Can this not be speedy deleted? 19:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC) <Comment by Jkelly</
• Agree that as blank, should be eligible for speedy. Tagged with {{db-empty}} to grab an admin on CSD patrol. Chris < 23:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have speedied it as requested. JoJan 09:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also Template:Danger-adultsuper and Template:Danger-professional. See Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates for the rationale. Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Warning boxes for dangerous activities and products. cesarb 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Disclaimers link is to suffice, it should be at the top of the framework, with a small warning box, so that it is seen immediately. Seahen 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, plus the fact that something is dangerous should already be documented (in a more encyclopedic and NPOV and less patronizing fashion) in the article. ~~ N (t/c) 23:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, in addition to those problems, the templates appear to be broken. That may not matter, but the breaking hides disclaimer information, which is very depreciated in templates. Wcquidditch | Talk 00:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Anyone feel like organizing a vote to make disclaimer templates speedyable? --Carnildo 00:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates--Clawed 01:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — Davenbelle 04:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This infobox can only be used for a single city, and is redundant given the existence of Template:Infobox Australian City. --Dalziel 86 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Has been moved back to user space. Brisvegas 05:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am nominating this template for deletion because it seems unencyclopedic. First of all, it actively highlights a temporary state of affairs. While this is sometimes unavoidable, there is a reason Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly is part of the style guide. Second, it doesn't contribute anything to the article, while creating a lot of blank space unnecessarily; the fact that there is a vacancy in an office seems to almost always be redundant with information presented in the article. Third, the link for "qualified applicants" seems out of place, particularly in articles such as Supreme Court of the United States (from which it was deleted with the comment "Is this a joke?" while I was writing this nomination). That should be enough to start with. — DLJessup (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I orphaned it. BJAODN and delete. ~~ N (t/c) 23:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• When I looked at it, I had a chuckle, so it must be funny. Delete and send to BJAODN per N. Wcquidditch | Talk 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hilarious, though! The "apply" link was particularly amusing. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is too funny to lose. Seriously, though, maybe an adapted version could be used for Wikipedia elections, once you replace the presidential seal by our globe and reword it. But this template gave me the best laugh all night. FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 03:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, it's a BJAODN and delete. Please don't use this on real articles. Rhobite 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Prime BJAODN material, but I have to agree with Jtdirl that we might want something like that for ourselves. (Implicit delete, of course) Titoxd<(?!?) 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODNfy immediately and inform the creator of the template that if not the whole world, atleast WP:BJAODN is looking for him to spread sunshine and laughter. --Gurubrahma 04:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hehe, I think I would have sent applicants here. --Tabor 07:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but put the creator up for a medal. The Land 14:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, but want to point out I got the O and A reversed, and came up with the potential expansion "Bad Joke On A Dumb Nation" Hackwrench 02:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but if you really want to, delete. I don't think it's nonsense. I don't think it's a bad joke, either. It's a damn good joke, and it's encyclopedic. It presents a notable fact in an interesting (and entertaining) way. At the time I created that, I had been doing much CSD screening on new pages and images for several days, and I really just sort of snapped. I needed to do something encyclopedic and lighthearted. The hilarity of it results from the fact the the Executive Office of the President of the United States of America solicits applications for Senate-confirmed positions on the main White House website. The template actually presents the user factual information - that this particular HR mechanism has made it all the way into the highest realms of even the federal government. I think the concept is encyclopedic. In hindsight, the template presentation is, well, unusual. A note might be added to George W. Bush Administration in the nominations section about this web application mechanism if it is deleted. --Mm35173 18:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, keep. Many jobs are notable enough that they have articles which deal with them on Wikipedia. How one gets said jobs is notable and important. We have a whole discourses on how men become popes, presidents, etc. How to get a presidentially appointed position is pertinent to each article about such positions. Since the information is reusable, and would likely change on all of these pages at once, templatization is a good way to present it.--Mm35173 18:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I already said keep jokingly but I like Mm's idea. A page on how applications are made is definitely encyclopædic and a reworded version of this template would be perfectly suited for such a page. But full marks to Mm for giving us all a great laugh. I've added a doctored version of it onto my user page, reworded in a humorous vein. FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 18:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Template:USDemPresNominees which is to a very large extent the same list. It looks bizarre to have a full listing of those who were nominated followed immediately by those who were nominated but lost at least one an election. Honestly, I can't see what useful informational purpose this serves beyond the nominees template itself. I could maybe see a category, but a full template listing of everyone ... that takes up a lot of real-estate for no obviously useful purpose. Derex @ 03:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with the nominator. We already have too many footer templates for presidents and presidential candidates. - SimonP 16:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize, for an example of what this template does, the John Kerry page is bloated at the bottom already. Titoxd<(?!?) 19:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not recreate as a category. Postdlf 06:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 21:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, and do not recreate as a category per Postdlf. Kurieeto 13:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
• Delete . Not only is it redundant, "nominees who have lost at least one Presidential election" is an ill-defined category on the surface. Shall we have a similar list (and template) for the Whigs, the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Progressives, the Natural Laws, the Reforms....? B.Wind 00:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This template has been created since May and it has only been linked to one page thus far.

While its original intent (to link to the Internet Theatre Database conveniently) is understandable, using the template requires the user to know the id of that play in the ITD site. This would require a visit to the site at the very least - and if you check that page for reference, why not use a direct link instead?

Last of all, the ITD itself has no article; this leads me to doubt how widely known and reliable that source is... Jeekc 15:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The ITDb suffers from the problem AFAIK that at present there is considerable overlap with the IBDb in its coverage. It does however have some coverage of Off-Broadway and U.S. Regional Theatre and it intends to do more, but with volunteer staff and no ad-driven funding like the IMDb has, it has been slow to get off he ground. However that has nothing to with my delete vote. It's that if we have such a template, then it should be {{itdb person}}, {{itdb show}}, etc. for the same reason why {{imdb}} was turned into a deprecated redirect to {{imdb name}}. Since this only has one usage at present, let's go ahead and delete this and if desired have it be redone right. Caerwine 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This template is just amonth old and it's becoming transcluded in several pages (unsubsted I mean). The original purpose was to let people have signatures showing up as ~~~~ (by including it unsubsted it within a signature in the preferences dialog). Using it for that purpose would mean this would become an ubiquitous unsubsted template.

Some people have commented it about using it within another template. But then it becomes the additional problem of transcluded template within template. And if it's substed, why not typing ~~~~directly ?

Finally, this tempalte cannot be edited (as seen me breaking it by inserting the tfd tag, please check the history and previous version to see how it was before the tfd) unless you use a hack related to the preferences dialog (basically changing your name to ~~~~ and thenn iserting your signature. Delete-- ( drini's <<vandalproof</ page <☎</ ) 04:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Here's the diff showing the previous version and the current nowiki-version (which then makes it redundant) [13]

• Annihilate. Very dangerous. Why would anyone ever need this when they could use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>? (BTW, {{tfd}} includes a large <noinclude> section, so you should never subst it, like you did on that template.) ~~ N (t/c) 04:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didnt use to, but I read somewhere I should do it so. I'll get you the link. -- ( drini's <<vandalproof</ page <☎</ ) 04:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok It seems I misread, I apologize. -- ( drini's <<vandalproof</ page <☎</ ) 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly delete. The ArbCom ruled against this particular sig in the -Ril- case, and any other use means having templates within templates which is also bad. -Splash<<talk</ 04:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom ruled, than should it be speedied? -- ( drini's <<vandalproof</ page <☎</ ) 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or in not-offical language, get rid of it. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice: this is simply annoying and is going to take a load of work to clear up. —Phil | Talk 10:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Incinerate Does not actually appear to have any use, and it's probably easier to just type "Chris < 20:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)"[reply]
• Strong keep. can we have it still I really think its a good one to have.
  

so it a self reference one according to the origanl reason. Why not move the instrucitons on its talk page to somewhere about templates.

--<☺Adam1213☺ Talk|WWW 00:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I made this template to show someone on help desk that it could be done (they wanted the sig to be added automagically by a template). I have no use for it. Delete Broken S 03:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The strongest delete of this debate. Not sure if this qualifies as a speedy under new evidence, but placing ~~~~ in a template is probably the worst thing that could ever go into a template. The {{vw}} series was a similar template, containing a usage of the appropriate {{test}} series template in addition to this bad signature system, before it was turned into normal redirects to the correct templates. We cannot handle these types of things, and they very depreciated, especially after that ArbCom ruling. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this thing, it has been placed on a blacklist by the ArbCom saying it was a bad idea to begin with, as Splash points out, and the idea is really bad overall. Titoxd<(?!?) 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<Before you vote...</

Please note that there is some confusion about this vote. It is not asking for the contents of the template to be deleted, but for those contents to be placed into the Irish Republic article.

Stop with the patronising. It's perfectly reasonable that people should be free to create templates to make live easier in editing articles. Having the table code contained in the article itself clutters it far more than a template does. Do you suggest deleting Template:European Union table also because it's only single-use? zoney ♣ talk 12:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capital idea! --Golbez 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of country infoboxes (they are all single-use) was already been voted on last month it seems, with a keep resolution - see [14]. Furthermore, you are senselessly interfering in the editing of articles. Who gives a damn about pandering to servers as opposed to keeping editing simple? zoney ♣ talk 00:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and subst into Irish Republic wich is the only article using it. Alternatively delete and replace it with an apropriate generic infobox template. --Sherool 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep This nomination is either done maliciously or through incompetence. Of course it is only used in one article. There is only one article on the Irish Republic. Where do you suggest it be put also, in Mongolia and France? It contains all the information on a state that no longer exists. Subsequent states have their own templates. This nomination is mindboggling in its stupidity. FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 21:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and subst into the article. There's no reason for this to be a separate template. - A Man In Black <(conspire | past ops) 21:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This is a malicious or ill-informed nomination: there is no difference between this infobox and the infoboxes for Kingdom of England, Commonwealth of England, The Protectorate, Kingdom of Scotland, Hanover (state), Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland etc, etc.--Mais oui! 21:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not subst those templates into their articles, as well? I don't see why we should have a separate template for an infobox that appears in one article only. - A Man In Black <(conspire | past ops) 21:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but they don't use templates - they are subst'd in, as should this one be. You state there is no difference, and therefore it is reasonable that the template be deleted and subst'd in. violet/riga (t) 21:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- no reason to delete. Astrotrain 21:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete as with all other single-use templates. I'm extremely disappointed by the kneejerk reactions here, especially from Jtdirl who should know better. --Golbez 21:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. violet/riga (t) 21:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting pointless, unused nonsensical templates makes sense. Proposing to delete a valid, working, accurate, relevant template is in my pure vandalism. I make no apologies for saying that the nomination here is either through incompetence or maliciousness. The nomination of admins here has deteriorated to a nasty, vicious brawl. Malicious or incompetent nominations of perfectly valid templates suggests that the same destructive standard is seeping in here too. If this is the sort of standard that Wikipedia wants to promote, then why should users both making efforts to make the site worth visiting?FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you nothing to say on the notion of substing it, or are you just going to harp on it? Let's see what words you've used, "malicious" "incompetent" "mindboggling stupidity" "pure vandalism." Do you have anything to add to the debate or are you just going to rant at no one in particlar? What's wrong with substing it? --Golbez 22:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You want my views? Here they are. It shouldn't have been created. It was. Get over it and don't waste time deleting a fine template when pages that do need work don't get it. This is a pointless, stupid, ridiculous nomination that embodies Wikipedia at its stupidest and most pointless. If people spent as much time fixing problems and professional standards as they do with waste-of-time nominations then Wikipedia wouldn't have been shown up to for having so many substandard articles in that Guardian article. FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 22:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree completely, Jtdirl - it should have been substed and speedied without any debate at all. --Golbez 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can I point out the irony of you spending lots of time spamming people in an effort to get support from every Irish wikipedian? So much time that could've been spent writing articles, no? There is good reason for this template to exist, and as a way of ending this discussion you could go ahead and subst and delete it yourself. violet/riga (t) 22:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • (After edit conflict.) It's not a waste of time. Subst'ing and deleting this single-use template will ease load on the server – by a tiny amount, granted, but it's still a good thing. Single-use templates are subst-and-deleted all the time. Framing this nomination as ridiculous, time-wasting, and vandalism is over-the-top. If you think it's a waste of time, then why did you message so many people about it? android79 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF. violet/riga (t) 22:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete as shown by the examples above. Templates that are only (and will only) be used by one article should be subst'd in. violet/riga (t) 21:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. Single-use templates ought not to be templates. android79 21:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. The info-box should certainly be retained but creating it as a template is an honest mistake. Presumably the creator misunderstood the process. (I know I do! I can see the result, but not how to get there. Is it documented anywhere?) --Red King 22:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete Izehar 22:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete all single-use templates. Titoxd<(?!?) 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - I am willing to be convinced otherwise if someone can give a valid reason - an not an ad hominem. --Doc <ask?</ 22:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete all single use templates.--Sean|Black 22:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Subst along with all other single use templates. Single use template is an oxymoron in my opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebelular (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. It's used in one article: I thought the point of a template was to allow for multiple use. Subst seems like a no-brainer. --Calton | Talk 23:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst into the one article that uses it, and delete. Oops. Forgot to sign this one. If it makes a difference, I have subst'd the template in for now. Chris < 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How does this differ from the discussion we had last month on other single country infoboxes where the decision was to keep? While I obviously disagreed with the argument there, one good point, ease of editting by segregating what should hopefully be a sufficently stable set of info into a transcluded document piece, was raised for this type of single use infobox. All I ask is consitency of application. Caerwine 01:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those were single-use templates that called another template. This is a single-use template that does not. That said, where these things don't fit, the standard infobox should be subst:ed into the specific template, and then the completed custom infobox subst:ed into the final article. Chris < 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. The point of a template is to be used many times. Isn't there a country template?David D. (Talk) 03:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, and block Jdtrl for 24 hours for personal attacks. There's no reason to have a single-use template. --Carnildo 05:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep - Don't be idiotic, this has to stay. --Irishpunktom\<talk 11:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? violet/riga (t) 11:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - I understand that this is a better template than some ones used in various articles. However, the basic purpose of a template is to address usage across articles. Why place a load (however minute it may be) on the server by having this in template space?? --Gurubrahma 13:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Parent article using this template is clearer when using a template than if including full table code with style and cell info. Don't see argument for deleting single use templates, I've certainly used them before to keep article source tidy. zoney ♣ talk 19:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; makes article more readable. Gerrit <CUTEDH 20:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per Zoney's comments. Useful & informative. - Ali-oops<✍ 22:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete - I accept the point re. single-article use & server load above - Ali-oops<✍ 23:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is informative and should not be deleted.--Play Brian Moore 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you don't understand what will happen if this is deleted. The table will still appear in the article; it just won't be transcluded from another page. - A Man In Black <(conspire | past ops) 22:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. It seems that Jtdirl's little spamming effort has caused a few users to think it is about the contents. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It didn't spam people and I didn't tell them how to vote. I informed Irish Wikipedians of this vote. Obviously some people don't like Irish people being told about votes here on Irish issues. It would have been much handier if it could all have been dealt with quietly behind Irish wikipedians' backs. FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 22:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh [removed swear word], this is WP:TFD, not WP:MARTYR. Stop assuming bad faith. --Golbez 01:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You did, however, ask approximately a dozen people to comment on this TFD, without telling them what was actually going on. This result, whether or not it was intended, is a problem. - A Man In Black <(conspire | past ops) 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • They can read. Or do you have a problem with people not doing what you want?FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 02:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly WP:TfD is the centrepoint for anti-Irish sentiment and we are all doing what we can to destroy Irish-related articles. Please be objective here - you still haven't given a good reason why this template should be kept (other than your initial vote which seems confused about the purpose of this TfD). violet/riga (t) 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I fail to see how telling people that they might be interested in voting on this issue is somehow a gross abuse of procedure. I told no-one how to vote. Some voted yes. Some no. That is their democratic entitlement. Why are you so touchy about informing people about votes here? (BTW I've had three emails and a couple of messages on my talk page from users thanking me for alerting them to this vote. Obviously they don't regard themselves as having been cynically manipulated, much less spammed with unwanted messages. What is your problem?) FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 02:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't like it when people that clearly have an agenda try and bring in other people "because it's an attack on Ireland" (my quote). You have still failed to give a reason for keeping this. violet/riga (t) 08:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because it is handy (less code in article) and the deletion effort seems petty. Why bother worrying about such a single-use template as opposed to any others? If the server load dictates such a policy in our article construction, then please change the reasons why templates can be deleted, and change the policies. As for the patronising suggestions that those voting to keep the template as a template are unaware this isn't about the content, just how ignorant do you think those people are? And the "talk page spamming" is a perfectly valid way of bringing the issue to the attention of those with an interest in the area. It's a perfectly normal procedure at this stage to draw such things to the attention of those who have a particular reason for being interested in some issue, as opposed to just leaving it to the usual vote-machine folks (note, a large section of the editing community isn't involved in regular voting, there's a distinct group of people who see it as their duty to make decisions for everyone else). And as for the effort on this template, it should be entirely obvious to you that both sides are investing effort in this for bigger reasons (i.e. who decides things) than the actual immediate issue at hand. zoney ♣ talk 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have one valid point for keeping it, but not something that changes my mind. Spamming is not an acceptable or encouragable thing here and there is an Irish noticeboard specifically for such a purpose. I'm not saying people are ignorant, but that some people seemed to think that it was to delete the content and leave it at that. Jtdirl is defending Ireland from a non-existant attack and not even giving a reason. You say "the deletion effort seems petty", but what about the keep effort? violet/riga (t) 10:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Jtdirl didn't spam other Wikipedians, he told them about a vote he thinks is important, and some of them thanked him for it. It's true that there's an Irish noticeboard for that kind of purpose, but individual messages are helpful sometimes, and apparently some of the people who recieved them were pleased. Them being happy to have recieved the message annulates the spam charge in my mind. --Blackcap | talk 03:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am unclear as to why this differs from precedent on what to do with single-country infoboxes. This should not be read as a vote. Jkelly 02:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and serving no purpose. To be frank, though, this debate has consumed far far more energy than the continued existance of this template would have. - brenneman<(t)<(c) 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to put information in a template to be included in just one article. Just put the information in the article itself. Substitute and delete. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. This is trivial; there should be a speedy criteria for properly-substed single-use templates. It is patently absurd that anyone would vote against that. Indeed, I suspect that most of the keep voters above haven't the faintest idea what 'subst' means and therefore don't know what they are voting on. --Aquillion 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. I'm not understanding what value keeping the template has. This template is used for only one article. The contents of the template itself can be contained in the article itself. A template is used when the same format is necessary for multiple articles. ℬastique▼<talk</ 20:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ONE reasons for a template is if it's used in more than one place ANOTHER is if the presence of the code in an article would unduly cluter it, sheesh --ElvisThePrince 13:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia:Template namespace, your "another" is not listed. --Golbez 15:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point I'll Be Bold and add it. --ElvisThePrince 10:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the talk page, I hope, as many people will disagree and it needs discussion. violet/riga (t) 10:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done of course it could be argued that this is all moot given the results of this [15] (which specicaly refed to all Country Specific Infoboxes)..........--ElvisThePrince 12:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a big fan of "hiding" complex code in templates myself. Sure a novice editor might be somewhat intimidated by a complex table code, and may even mess it up unintentionaly, but IMHO by "sheltering" them from such things they might never learn and they might not even know how to find and edit the template if that's what they wanted. IMHO it's better to keep it all in the article and instead insert some good comments in the code to tell people what is going on and what is article text and what is markup code. For portals and project pages it can make sence to compartmentalise the page, but then subpages, not templates should be used IMHO. --Sherool 12:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I've started this here as it seemed a more sensible place to discuss the "General case" rather than this instance (unless people think that this here has already decied the matter) --ElvisThePrince 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete all single use templates. Johntex\<talk 18:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. Use general country infobox instead. *drew 10:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but change the code; per the decision last week, single use country infoboxes which invoke {{Infobox Country}} are OK. This one however merely duplicates it. The template should be kept, but the code change to invoke Infobox Country. See the source of {{Infobox Australia}} for an explanation of what I mean. --bainer (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just put the info in the article. Gene Nygaard 02:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Templates make the article easier to edit, one use templates are useful. SCVirus 05:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Irish Republic should use a more generic template. Of course France shouldn't be using {{France infobox}} either, and England, Scotland and however many other countries shouldn't have the table coded-up inline. A generic solution is required, is there currently a generic country infobox which can replace these?. Thanks/wangi 10:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep or recreate --Boothy443 | trácht ar 11:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Jtdirl and Zoney. --Blackcap | talk 03:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The raw numbers here are 25d-12k, which is just over the traditional two-thirds. Numerous among the keepers appear to have misunderstood the effect of a subst: and delete, however, so the strength of their comments is less than it might be. There is no shortage of consensus to delete. -Splash^talk 18:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not used anywhere. --Sherool 20:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so. It was created to be used in Northern Ireland related politics articles, alongside other templates listing prime ministers and cultural figures. It has been reinserted in some of the articles some idiot removed it from. FearÉIREANN\<(caint) 20:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we lay off the personal attacks, please? "Mind-bogglingly stupid" above and "some idiot" here don't help make your case. android79 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. Put it into Northern Ireland Assembly and then delete it - I can't see how it can be useful outside of that article, and single-use templates should be subst'd in. violet/riga (t) 22:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I checked "what links here" and there was nothing there when I nominated it, when I see an orphand template I TFD it. It's also mostly a collection of "fair use" images wich are not allowed in templates per Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, I suppose {{CrownCopyright}} alternatives might be found though. Anyway since it's aparenlty used after all I'll withdraw the nomination. --Sherool 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - I am willing to be convinced otherwise if someone can give a valid reason - and not an ad hominem.Doc <ask?</ 23:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least delete the pointless images and subst. --Calton | Talk 23:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At the very least, remove the restricted-use images Image:Smallon.jpg and Image:Mdurkan.jpg from it. --Carnildo 05:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We might as well have a template for this particular political post, as many others. Not necessarily this template though. There may well, at some stage, be more First Ministers making the template more useful. The Land 14:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete single use, not compelled by arguments otherwise. - brenneman<(t)<(c) 00:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep or recreate --Boothy443 | trácht ar 11:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete: orphaned -- Zondor 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete: not used -- Zondor 18:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete: only used by one article -- Zondor 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete Izehar 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to the article's sub-page and delete. Deryck C. 09:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (addendum: This template helped me a lot when editing the page Portal:Hong Kong. Hope you'll move, for example to Portal:Hong Kong/edit instead of delete. Deryck C. 09:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• actually, i think this is obsolete by {{ed2}} -- Zondor 09:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete: not used. -- Zondor 18:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete: orphaned. -- Zondor 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This template is not used anymore. Was replaced by Template:Infobox Monarch Basic. JW1805 18:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template as in intermediate template to enable the early English monarchs to be migrated to a standard template. JW1805 has completed this task, so I am happy for this template to be deleted.Martin.Budden 08:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This template is not used anymore. Was replaced by Template:Infobox Monarch Basic. JW1805 18:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template as in intermediate template to enable the early English monarchs to be migrated to a standard template. JW1805 has completed this task, so I am happy for this template to be deleted.Martin.Budden 08:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not used. not appropriate for articles in main namespace -- Zondor 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I created it specifically to demonstrate that editorial commentary on the main article page is, indeed, inappropriate. It's not needed any more. —Charles P. <(Mirv)</ 18:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: orphaned. seems useless. -- Zondor 17:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: orphaned. would not belong on article. -- Zondor 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 00:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fast Delete Pointless... literally. B.Wind 02:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not used except in User talk:Aris Katsaris and Wikipedia:Country referencing templates. there is no need to keep "PR CHINA" as separate from "PRC". Template:PRC should be used instead. --roc (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But then, where would all the Republic/People's Republic/Mainland/Not-Mainland China edit warriors go for templates if not to revert {{PRC}} to {{PR CHINA}} and v.v.? (Delete) Chris < 19:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{CHN_FIFA}} or {{CHNf}}. — Instantnood 07:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Huge and ridiculous. Not useful whatsoever. K1Bond007 17:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Wikipedia:Embedded list, and the fact that it's quite large, and if this was done for all important lists, some articles would be overwhelmed with various large boxes. It's much better to have lists as a separate article. --Interiot 19:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too large --Monkbel 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Large, obnoxious, and ugly. Not very likely to be wanted as a navigation path. -Rjo 20:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too large and irrelevant. *drew 20:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful and no important information. Tunel 22:21, 8 Novenbre 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because, if nothing else, it's wildly POV, being GameSpy's opinion. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obscenely large on the page - destroys any semblance of a normal page layout... TheRealFennShysa 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Ugly and of very little use. If anywhere this list should be incorporated into the GameSpy article. If anywhere. – Quoth 00:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not a helpful navigation path, too large to be useful and POV. Megapixie 08:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not useful and not NPOV! RustyCale 15:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too big to fit anywhere. -- ReyBrujo 23:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Encyclopedic" generally shouldn't apply to template size. (SEWilco 03:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete: Huge, obnoxious, not useful, and biased. --larsinio 16:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:There is no reason for this to exist on a site for factual information. It is an obvious bias. TotalTommyTerror 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:No reason for it here --SoWhy 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and Delete: I was inspired to add this by the recent debate on Irish Republic infobox. Single-use template; should be substed and deleted. Also delete Template:European Union infobox, which merely calls this template. Golbez 16:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget {{France infobox}}, {{Germany infobox}}, {{United Kingdom infobox}}, etc., etc. you server-pandering article-code-spewing crusaders. Why not just delete all Wikipedia's articles. That'll help server load.

On a more serious note, this issue has already been voted on (with a keep resolution) - see [16].

zoney ♣ talk 00:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it was decided does not mean it was decided correctly, nor does it mean that it cannot be redecided. Why don't you put every single word in a template? And before you point out how ridiculous that sounds, I am but a mirror. --Golbez 04:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The European Union article currently has {{European Union table}} where it would otherwise have a whopping huge bunch of code for the table. Putting all that code in the main article is a hideous proposition. zoney ♣ talk 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and Delete all single-use templates. android79 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, as it's a single-use template that obscures possible editing of the table. - A Man In Black <(conspire | past ops) 19:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No convincing argument has been offered to justify deletion of such templates. Plonking replacement monster size chunks of codes in pages is pointless and opens the way to easy vandalism. User:Jtdirl 19:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there has been many a time when a template has been vandalized and people don't know where it came from. I recall once when a major template was vandalized with a penis picture, and people were reporting vandalism in the articles, but no one saw it in the article history, and it took a few dangerous minutes before someone realized that the picture must be in the template linked to by the articles. Just saying - vandalism works both ways. --Golbez 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, single-use template. --Carnildo 20:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. Single-use template. *drew 20:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete all single-use templates. They're an unnecessary complication for editors, and waste resources for no definable reason. --Aquillion 21:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, as per those above. violet/riga (t) 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but change the code; the previous decision was about country-specific templates which invoke {{Infobox Country}}, this one truly duplicates it. It should be changed to just invoke {{Infobox Country}} instead. See the source of {{Infobox Australia}} for an explanation of what I mean. --bainer (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One poll does not a precedent set. Also, it looks like {{Infobox Australia}} should be subst'd in if it's not used in another article. To quote Wikipedia:Template namespace: Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page. By its very definition, use on one page alone cannot satisfy the requirement of "more than one page". Chris < 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep or recreate --Boothy443 | trácht ar 11:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain this vote. "Recreate"? Chris (signature broken) 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Obsoleted by new version of {{Book reference}}. Phil | Talk 15:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Good job, a useful simplification for the editor. (I am the original author of Template:Book reference edition.) PAR 18:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (user of Template:Book reference) — Adrian | Talk 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No longer needed. (SEWilco 03:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: Obsoleted by new version of {{Book reference}}. Phil | Talk 13:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (user of Template:Book reference) — Adrian | Talk 15:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No longer needed. (SEWilco 03:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: Obsoleted by new version of {{Book reference}}. Phil | Talk 10:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (Author of the optional Chapter parameter to book_reference) (SEWilco 15:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. (user of Template:Book reference) — Adrian | Talk 15:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obsoleted by new version of {{Book reference link}}. Phil | Talk 10:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (Author of the optional Chapter parameter to book_reference) (SEWilco 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. (user of Template:Book reference) — Adrian | Talk 15:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obsoleted by new version of {{Book reference}}. Phil | Talk 16:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (user of Template:Book reference) — Adrian | Talk 15:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have already merged it's content into the Sesame Street article itself (substed template), so nothing will be lost. The now orphanded template can not be used any any other articles, and it's current form violate Wikipedia guidelines regarding the use of fair use images in templates, so it should be deleted. --Sherool 19:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agreed. violet/riga (t) 20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inappropriate use of template space, violates a policy, was a single-use template. Should have always had its wikimarkup in Sesame Street like it is now. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Give it to Oscar and delete it. B.Wind 02:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Aloysius Snuffleupagus says delete. Ral315 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or change: Large template with a many red links. I created it but would like to offer it to community before it's deleted. wikicali 15:48, 9 November 2005 (PST)

• Delete. We've deleted the VA and the NY one, and this is another state with many highways. Also note the AFD for List of California State Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What AFD? --Golbez 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes It was created as a WP:POINT but has information that pertains to this discussion. (It was speedy kept by the way). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems to be even larger than the other ones. - SimonP 04:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant as there is already a much more flexible (and useful) table at Florida State Roads, and every article for a highway in the Florida State Road system has a link to it. B.Wind 23:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a H-U-G-E mass of meaningless numbers. BlankVerse 13:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a template that is too large and has too many red links, and consensus appears to be to delete these types of templates. Wcquidditch | [[User talk:Wcquidditch|Talk]] 12:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete: Single-use template, used only in Taoiseach. Should be substed into the article and deleted. --Carnildo 21:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep of course. One of Carnildo's crusade to erase templates dealing with Ireland. Templates are created to be used. Erasing templates while articles are being worked on that will use them is IMHO vandalism. 00:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The old "Ireland is under attack" stance. Please stop such paranoid accusations. violet/riga (t) 17:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were interested in attacking pages on Ireland, I would have removed the images from this template as being fair-use images not in the article space, and deleted two of them as being unsourced images -- and I would have been 100% within policy while doing so. --Carnildo 23:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, the fair use images may or may not be fair use in the article but are definitely not fair use outside the article space. JYolkowski // talk 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, JYolkowski has a good point. Fair use is a constraint, not a liberty. --Golbez 04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and Delete. Images that would be fair use in article-space are not in template space. This problem could be alleviated by removing the images or altering the template to take the image names as parameters. However, even if that is addressed, this is still a single-use template and should be subst'd and deleted. "Erasing templates while articles are being worked on that will use them" indicates that there are unwritten articles that are planned to use this template; it would help to know what they are. Continuing to frame these nominations as a "crusade to erase templates dealing with Ireland" rather than a simple effort to eliminate the use of single-use templates and labeling it "vandalism" is offensive and falls on the wrong side of WP:AGF. android79 15:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - no need for a single-use template. violet/riga (t) 17:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - does not appear to satisfy any TFD criteria Stifle 23:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep or recreate --Boothy443 | trácht ar 11:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is slightly below the two-thirds level numerically. However, I can't find much meaning in Stifle's comment, and Booth443's is a pure vote. His use of the word "recreate" in each of these debates leads to be question the good-faith of these comments. Also, the paranoia evident in many of the keep comments in several of these debates considerably lessens their persuasion. That taken against the strongly made fair use claims here in particular, leads me to delete this template, after substing it. -Splash^talk 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obsoleted by new version of {{Book reference}}. Phil | Talk 14:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (user of Template:Book reference) — Adrian | Talk 15:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no longer needed. (SEWilco 02:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete this Republican counterpart to the Democratic template listed below. Unnecessary glut. We already have Republican presidential nominees. Next will come Successful Republican presidential candidates, then Republican presidential candidates who were renominated, then Republican presidential candidates who were not renominated... And don't make a damn category for it either. Postdlf 06:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - both of them - per nom. BD2412 T 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - both. ditto. Oy. --Mark Adler 04:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nominator. Agree on no categories for the subject as well. Kurieeto 13:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/modify - I actually think this is quite a useful category as titled; the weird thing is that the actual content box specifies a particular party. My vote is to keep this category, but make it non-partisan. Jgm 13:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jgm, you want just the category, or the template too? Are you aware that there is already a template for republican nominees, period? Derex @ 02:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, I failed to make the distinction between template and cat. I do think that "failed candidates" is useful as a non-partisan entity in addition to lists/template/cats by party. Jgm 02:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.

Delete: Two templates that are used only for displaying non-free images on a single user's page. Attempts to discuss this with the user have met with no response in the past week, during which time the user has edited Wikipedia. Since the the templates violate two policies, being single-use templates and templates used only to display non-free images (see Wikipedia:Fair use), they should be deleted. --Carnildo 05:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, normaly such templates could be "userified", but since it's mostly a gallery of unfree images (with maybe one or two exceptions) that's not apropriate in this case. --Sherool (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Sherool. BlankVerse 13:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created it by mistake, not realizing that Template:User khtml already exists. — A.M. 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deleted under CSD G7. Titoxd<(?!?) 05:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant to the existing template for presidential nominees. Waste of real-estate for no useful purpose. Derex @ 02:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. For your information, there are actually entire countries apart from the United States who have presidents. I doubt this template and category will cover all countries and candidates since the 1700s. -- Perfecto  02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To quote Yogi, redundancy is good until it becomes too redundant, which this template is. Titoxd<(?!?) 05:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Not only are they redundant, "nominees who have lost at least one Presidential election" is an ill-defined category on the surface. Shall we have a similar list (and template) for the Whigs, the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Progressives, the Natural Laws, the Americans, the Reforms....? B.Wind 00:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. — Instantnood 10:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete too many templates--Jiang 10:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Been around for over a month, but not used anywhere except as an example on one talk page, and the comments there suggests it won't be used as most people would prefer the more "conventional" periodic table template. --Sherool 01:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 15:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Profanity. If it survives TfD, I'll format it in the style of the other clean-up templates. --TantalumTelluride 15:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a page contains "shit" and "piss", be bold and change them to "feces" and "urine". It will take less time than locating this template for tagging the article. (unless, of course, it is part of a quote from an apparently foul-mouthed individual, in which case it should remain as-is). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 16:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: (I tried to reply earlier, but I must not have saved the page.) I don't know whether the previous comment was directed to me specifically or to the discussion in general, but I probably would overwrite profanity on site rather than posting a template on the page. I also would leave the original contributor of the profanity a message on his talk page in the form of {{obscene}}. In light of additional comments, I'm changing my vote to neutral. --TantalumTelluride 22:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep Sorry I started creating this but had to log off before finished, I made a little picture for it too:
  It seems my picture has been deleted for some reason, who knows why? Gary Kirk 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's still there, you just got the name wrong, remember Wikipedia is case sensitive wien it comes to page and file names. --Sherool (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:JETFA. ~~ N (t/c) 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is where WP:BOLD comes in. If there are swearwords in the article for no good reason (a good reason beeing for example the examples in Fuck) just remove them, no need for a "maintainance" template for that. If it's a huge problem and you don't have the time to fix it right away just add {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} instead. --Sherool (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Sherool. DES <(talk)</ 19:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary, extremely limited use. If you stumble across expletives used in this way, either fix it yourself or add {{cleanup}} and note on the talk page your specific concerns about the profanity. android79 19:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. {{sofixit}}. --Carnildo 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as those above. violet/riga (t) 23:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —jiy (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary. *drew 11:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Awfully presumptive. BD2412 T 19:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Fuckin' delete! — Phil Welch 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WTF? Titoxd^(?!?) 05:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote count: Delete = 25. Keep = 10. Listify = 1.

Delete: see below... Go for it! 08:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main problems of this template:

• Size: 147 topics and growing
• Cohesion: for a large number of articles where it is inserted, only a fraction of the links provided are useful
  • All 147 topics on the template have the template on their page, essentially creating a See Also of every topic to every other topic
• This is a large list of topics, its purpose is redundant to a Category, and Categories are better suited for this
• A link to the portal:spirituality would be much more appropriate; this same list is already there.

Go for it! 08:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ekk gods delete far too vauge a concept anyway - any religious concept could make a claim to being included - content is totally POV.Doc <ask?</ 08:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Massive delete for a massive template. Yikes. —HorsePunchKid→龜 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone is ready to invenst the necessary effort, Portalize. --Pjacobi 08:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Two related templates are nominated for deletion at the same time. The content of {{Spiritual practices}} was merged into {{Spirituality}}. Consequently, the decision for #Template: Spirituality should be made before the decision for #Template: Spiritual practices. — Richard<RDF</<talk 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I removed the sections from {{Spiritual practices}}, cutting the size of this template roughly in half. — Richard<RDF</<talk 19:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Due to the controversial nature of this template in the Tfd discussion, I “minimalized” it to include only the header links. Further attempts to include links to other articles can proceed from here. — Richard<RDF</<talk 22:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme WTF Delete. ~~ N (t/c) 18:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Spirituality is an eclectic concept that has a wide range of interesting and useful topics. This template offers a representative sample of them. No policy prohibits templates of this size. Other spirituality-related templates of comparable and even larger size have been used successfully, e.g., {{Hinduism}} and {{Yoga}}. All of these templates also include a “Hide/Show” button that minimizes their display, if so desired. The Yoga article is an example that contains all three templates. Wikipedia offers multiple ways to organize articles, such as templates, lists, categories, and portals. Different readers have different approaches to using such resources. No one way is inherently better than any other way, so a balanced and NPOV approach is to offer a variety of options for different user styles. — Richard<RDF</<talk 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep whats the harm of a giant template? More people finding links to click on? Besides, this is actually 2 templates merged into each other, so maybe your saying we should refork the template? That might not be a bad idea, since spirituality is pretty broad... Sam Spade 18:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete both templates. "A variety of user styles" is already accounted for by:

• (1) Portal:Spirituality, for a listing of the topics exactly like the one this template has, with the bonus of not needing to redundantly include the same meaningless information—yes, meaningless; anyone who hasn't already read these articles or been acquainted with these concepts won't have any idea what most of the terminology means, so they'll be jumping blind on hitting the links! Wikipedia is supposed to assume ignorance; while a list like this might be marginally useful to someone who's well-aware of all the spiritual concepts and wants to navigate them immediately, this use would fade quickly, and everyone else wouldn't be helped at all, they'd just be bewildered, and probably scared off, by the massive, unasked-for linklist. The way to best link to other articles is to link to them within the context of the article text, whenever an opportunity to do so arises, so that through the context they're linked to in a user can at least partially understand their meaning, and, if curious, confirm the meaning by clicking the link. Rather than cluttering up so many hundreds of very important articles with something that probably most readers won't want (even if a handful do), you cause more inconvenience than helpfulness; instead of a huge "see also" list, why not simply provide a link to the spirituality portal if it really is needed!
• (2) Category:Spirituality. Stuff like this is the reason categories were invented to begin with: so thatt huge lists of links could be provided without crowding up article pages at all! Instead, anyone scrolling to the bottom of the page can just see the link to the "Spirituality" category there, and, if interested, click that and get all the spirituality concepts one could ever want! With the added bonus of there being no need to argue endlessly over which topics to include or not include, which ones are important enough and which aren't, which a list like this will inevitably be the result of; the Category can be much more comprehensive, much more well-organized, and much more convenient by being both omnipresent on every article having to do with spirituality (or at least in the form of a subcategory within spirituality) through a nice, simple link, and not breaking up the structure and balance of many articles by including a huge blue box (or a small blue box, if closed; it can still be too much, don't kid yourself!) at the bottom as a mandatory feature.
• (3) See also sections. If there are any links in that template box which are really relevant to the article, why not include them in a link within the article text and/or just link to them in the see also section? In cases where such a topic is linked to in the See Also section, this template causes triple redundancy: the Category:Spirituality, the See Also links to relevant spirituality concepts, and the template is clearly far too much noise to be helpful to users. Overusing templates will befuddle and frighten true newbies more often; while experimenting with layout and new ways to improve page navigation like this is a good thing, at least to toss around ideas, we have to keep in mind: with every new concept we implement on Wikipedia, each idea will seem foreign and strange to anyone unfamiliar with it. As such, we should not use fancy layout tricks and elaborate templates except when it truly benefits all the articles involved to do so. In this case, it doesn't.
• (4) More specific templates that only deal with a small list of clearly-related subjects, not a massive list of them. This is the best way to handle template links. See Jesus, for example: the Jesus template box, at the top of the page, doesn't include hundreds, or even dozens, of the articles related to Jesus. Just the opposite, it includes only the bare minimum, the most overarching, central, vital articles that aren't in any way subsections of each other. There's no huge, intimidating infobox of all Jesus subjects; instead, there's Category:Jesus for anyone who wants to navigate through them all. Using several smaller, compact templates is always better than using one huge one, as it allows for much layout flexibility and a shorter, simpler list of links will attract readers rather than scaring them off.

• There is always such a thing as "too much". Too much information, too many templates and fancy linking styles, too many bright, colorful templates marring too many pages, too much trying to link to everything else on Wikipedia on every other page on Wikipedia. Using a few different methods of informing people of related topics (such as the four I mentioned above) is fine, but we shouldn't be outright redundant when it weakens the cohesion of the articles. And that's why you should elect me Governor of Wikipedia. Thank you. -Silence 18:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's your position on free DSL upgrades for all Wikipedians? ;-) — Richard<RDF</<talk 18:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Go for it. Though there are plenty of more important things to do first. (If this isn't just a non sequitur comment based on my "running-for-governor" statement, presumably you're mistaking my view for "we shouldn't cause unnecessary load time" rather than "we shouldn't make pages unnecessary crowded, overlinked, and complicated"? Load time has nothing to do with it; I'm a big supporter of fairly long articles with lots of beautiful images. But I'm a big opponent of redundancy and template-use-for-its-own-sake. There are countless better ways to handle this matter than by having this template on every major page that's been qualified as "spirituality". If that's not what you meant by your comment about DSL, I apologize.) -Silence 20:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It was just a joke. Your comment made me laugh. :-) — Richard<RDF</<talk 00:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the important topics. Create other templates for more specific areas. Falphin 19:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its a really good template that summrises different flavours of spirituality from different cultures in one template . Summrise it a little bit if required , although since it comes with a show/hide option , & lies at the end , I dont think size is a big problem . The template is handy for people who like to study spirituality beyond geographical/cultural boundries . F.a.y.19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see any harm in having such big templates. The template makes it easier for a reader to have a quick glance on all major spirituality-related topics. --Deepak|वार्ता 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, salt the earth, burn this piece of POV hideousness, I think my eyes are bleeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowspinner (talk • contribs)
• Comment I do think some people will consider this a "template overload" (especially in topics that have templates for more than one religion AND the spirituality template). However, the user can always hide them! Either way, I'm indifferent as to whether it is kept or removed. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per those before me. Huge, useless, and non-NPOV. —jiy (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a good template and brings all different spiritual concepts together. --Raj2004 01:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Kgf0 01:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Totally useless. Ashibaka (tock) 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but strongly recommend splitting into sub-templates that are more topic specific with a sub-topic switching link set rather than having all the links together in one template. Courtland 03:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but give it a decent trim, or re-fork it as recommended above. --bainer (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am in awe at the keep votes here. This template violates every policy about infoboxes we have, is hopelessly vague, and could quadruple in size without coming anywhere near being complete. The hodge podge of concepts is highly POV (Arguing that Buddhist and Christian concepts are somehow part of an overall conception of "the spiritual" is a fundamentally new age conception), the box has cross-namespace links... there is NOTHING good about this box. Phil Sandifer 20:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV is not a voting matter. If the consensus is to violate NPOV, then the consensus is wrong. - David Gerard 20:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by and large what is being touted as "policy" is actually "guideline" and should be treated as such. NPOV violation, on the other hand, is a significant policy violation and if there is a conclusion that NPOV violation is occurring then it should be done away with, period. My "keep" vote is based on a) not feeling this violates that policy and b) not forcing guideline down the throat of editors for the sake of aesthetics. Courtland 01:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV, too big.
• Delete - gross NPOV violation, advocacy, and it takes TWO THIRDS OF THE DAMN SCREEN. What the fuck. A gross error of judgement. As was, e.g., putting it on Immolation ... a disambig page. i.e., it's article-space spamming. This is an attempt to put a comprehensive portal into every article, and is ridiculously unbalanced. Kill it. Kill it with an axe. NPOV is not negotiable and is not a matter for voting. - David Gerard 20:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overly large and overly vague. - SimonP 21:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 <talk 21:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the excellent collection of arguments above. This is an attempt to place a portal within every page that could be considered 'spiritual' by someone. It's POV, it's hideous, and it's just way too general to be placed in every possible article. —Morven 21:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all of the worst excesses of "See also" sections distilled for easy transclusion. Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on NPOV It occurs to me that if this template is considered in violation of NPOV policy, then the Spirtuality Portal and the Spirtuality Category must be deleted as also being (inevitably) in violation; and as NPOV is, according to most here, not a consensus matter but a fact absolute and not open to voting, these deletions must take place without debate and immedately upon completion of this TfD proceeding. This conclusion is predecated on comments such as the statement that the Portal has "a listing of the topics exactly like the one this template has". Are there arguments counter to this? Courtland 01:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of having a Spirituality Portal is not POV, in my view (some may disagree). However, the specific, current application of it, and of this template, could certainly be construed as such. However, the chief reason for deleting this template is certainly not because it's POV, but because it's too redundant, vague, and friggin' 'uge to be of any real use in just about all of the articles it's used in. That is why this should be deleted. After that's over with, we can worry about what specific entries that should be removed or added to make the Spirituality Portal higher-quality and less POVed. For example, is paranormal phenomena really a "spirituality" topic? Why are the Islamic concept of Sufism, the Hindu concept of Yuga, the Christian concept of Epiphany, the Sikh concept of Simran, the Eastern Orthodox concept of Theosis, and the Buddhist concept of Bodhi specifically "spiritual", while thousands of other religious topics aren't?

I raised many of these complaints previously on the Talk page of this template, but most of my complaints were ignored. All I got were responses like "I agree "Spirituality" is different from a more focused topic like "Sikhism." By its very nature, it's more eclectic. That’s what makes it valuable as a template. It provides an opportunity to juxtapose different perspectives that otherwise might not cross paths.", which don't seem to acknowledge that Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. So I'm glad so much more debate has been provoked by this nomination, regardless of the outcome. -Silence 02:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The portal is non-intrusive, and is not in the article namespace. I have no real objections to POV portals (To some extent, at least - for reasons that are probably not grounded in Wikipedia policy so much as personal commitments, I would not look favorably on Portal:White Power), because it seems like POV can be a useful organizational tool - but when that organizational tool becomes article content, as this template causes it to, that's a problem. Phil Sandifer 18:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too big, overbroad, vague--and not used with any common sense. Gene Nygaard 02:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. — Instantnood 08:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It already has been. See Spirituality. Also, add "lists" as a fifth item to my list of the many excellent alternatives to something as cumbersome and invasive as this template. -Silence 18:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• iff it is converted to a minimalist version that is only the top line of the template, then Keep, otherwise, Delete. BlankVerse 12:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for all the reasons above. This weed has outgrown its usefulness. B.Wind 15:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for all the reasons above. linas 15:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with BlankVerse's comment--HistoricalPisces 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too big and vague. Somehow it resembles spam. Sheehan 08:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Izehar 09:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As the article on Spirituality attests, it is a term much too vague. There really is no way to distinguish spirituality from religion, and we already have some superb infoboxes on religion. --Tydaj 18:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but distinguish religion from spirituality. As they are two seperate concepts with two seperate articles, this is surely possible. — goethean ॐ 19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately it isn't 'spirituality' has no one definition - and if we use the broadest definition (something like 'any reflection or awareness of transcendence') then all religious practices whatsoever would have to be included (and more besides). That is why this template is ultimately inherently POV, and must be deleted regardless of its size. --Doc <ask?</ 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this an argument to delete the template becuase it inherently is POV, it's an argument to delete everything associated with "spirituality." Such an argument goes well beyond its own extreme POV into advocating for systemic bias of Wikipedia. — Richard_RDF^talk 01:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't an article to delete everything related to "spirituality" from Wikipedia. Read his actual comment. He was pointing out, quite correctly, that since "religion" is a type of "spirituality", the only way to have religion and spirituality as two separate templates of a similar nature would be to either (1) make template:spirituality horrifically, unmanagably huge (even more so than it already is), or (2) make template:spirituality extremely POVed and arbitrary in which "religious" concepts (like Salvation) it lists. And if you look at the current list we have on template:spirituality, you could actually make a strong case that the current template suffers from both problems, and thus has the worst of all worlds: not only is it somewhat POVed by claiming definitively "X is a type of spirituality" and implying that countless other things of equal or greater importance aren't, but it's also overwhelmingly large (and thus much less helpful than a smaller list of links that would look much less intimidating to someone just becoming acquainted with these articles). But anyway, we can worry about solving the POV problem on the Spirituality portal, where size will be much less of an issue and we'll no longer be forcing hundreds of articles to have to conform to a certain article format by having a garish mandatory template on them. -Silence 01:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Of course, you can define spirituality in a less inclusive manner - but it will be a POV definition. Also remember that many religions will not caregorise their doctines as spirituality, and others will deny that such an overarching concept as spirituality exists at all. That doesn't mean that we delete all metion of spirituality: an article on spirituality can give a number of differing definitions and objectively record objections and various POV's - that's what articles are for (even a portal can, and should, carry disclaimers). But a template cannot, and unless we rename it template:concepts sometimes regarded as pertaining to spirituality and list everything - it will have to be a POV selection. Doc [[User talk:Doc glasgow|^ask?]] 10:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - It's like the person who made it thought up every possible thing he could mention regardless of whether they are related or not and crammed them all into one huge ugly box... Never small box is just as ugly and serves no purpose that an inline link to spirituality doesn;t already do. People need to stop coming up with reasons to put more ugly boxes on pages and work on making solid encyclopedia content. DreamGuy 06:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill it with fire. It duplicates the perfectly good portal link template, it's POV, it's hopelessly broad (although it's no longer massive)...no. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm sure RDF has the best intentions, but unfortunately, one person's spirituality is often another person's heresy. We can say a given group claims to be spiritual, we shouldn't imply categorically that a group truly is spiritual. Spirituality is too subjective for a dry infobox. --Fire Star 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially redundant with the portal and category. -Sean Curtin 07:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and this template is nothing but a subjective slice of Category:Seattle landmarks, not to mention hideous. Postdlf 06:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Template:Seattle maybe, but this- too specific and travel guide-ish. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This is not a violation of NPOV, not redundant with any other template, is noteworthy (tells you about sightseeing in seattle). If its hideous, clean it up, Jack. -155.91.28.231 03:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to a footer. If the decision is to delete, move the articles to the landmark category. — Instantnood 10:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BlankVerse 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh please tell me again what the justification is? I don't recall "wikipedia is not a travel guide" as a policy...

• Delete It is part of a policy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Like the nominator said, this is a subjective slice; why include Space Needle if you're not going to include the Seattle Central Library or Dick's Drive-In? —jiy (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I miss Dick's. A Seattle landmarks template seems perfectly reasonable to me. "Sightseeing" sounds too puffy though. Just change the name, and make it a footer template. Derex [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the aforementioned policy An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Space Needle, Ballard Locks, Fremont Troll -- are these equivalent to latte prices or equivalent to the Eiffel tower? If you think something is missing -- add it! That's the way wikipedia works. -155.91.28.231 01:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also the Instruction manual part of the same aforementioned policy. It says Wikipedia does not offer advice. This template is essentially list of recommended places to visit in Seattle. People can't just keep adding onto it as it will just grow large and unwieldy. —jiy (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we don't offer travel advice. Rhobite 06:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The pro-keep side appears to be based on something of a misunderstanding of 1)the purpose of templates and 2)WP:NOT. The numbers are something close to tow-thirds depending on whether or not I count the anon, but the debate is persuasive enough to delete anyway. -Splash^talk 21:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a massive notice to highlight that two dates are missing. violet/riga (t) 19:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete violet/riga (t) 19:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My God... Phil Sandifer 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every article is missing some kind of information, we don't need a template arbitrarily telling us about the dates. —jiy (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary. —Morven 21:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it burns us. --Golbez 21:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with Category:Articles_needing_dates. Wikipedia is not a dating service. -Silence 21:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just "manualy" add either Category:Year of birth missing and/or Category:Year of death missing instead. --Sherool (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary. *drew 11:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BlankVerse 12:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It practically rubs our collective nose in it. Don't wait the week -- there is already consensus -- DELETE IT NOW!!!
• Ex-ter-min-ate! EX-TER-MIN-ATE!! The quicker, the better. Chris < 18:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Silence Ashibaka (tock) 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. PSH! Enough said. Deano 01:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete encourages editor laziness. NSR (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ax it: Totally unused duplicate of {{Wikipedia is Communism}} 68.39.174.238 01:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being an unnecessary duplication. Courtland 02:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —jiy (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to {{Wikipedia is Communism}}. This may be a necessary shortcut, but we do not need a duplication! Wcquidditch | Talk 02:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason not to make this a straight redirect? Chris < 19:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused, obsoleted by Template:Album infobox —jiy (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and delete, indicating merge to {{Album infobox}}. It does not appear in looking at Template_talk:Album_infobox that this template proposed for deletion has been discussed. "Album infobox" has existed since Nov 2004, while "Original Studio Album" has existed since Dec 2004. Superficially it looks like that the template up for deletion has been considered in the development of {{Album infobox}}, but in the discussion I see (I don't see an archive link) there is not evidence of this being a topic of dicussion. Courtland 02:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. Obsolete design, should not be in use. --FuriousFreddy 00:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been recently discussed over at WikiProject Professional wrestling that we're trying to get rid of champion tables because of their size (coming from soon to be deleted Template:WorldTagTeamChampions). Not only is this template incomplete and not well written, if it were complete it would just restate information available in the in-depth List of WWE Hardcore Champions and be so big that it would be difficult to serve as a useful form of navigation. --Oakster 13:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - incomplete, unwieldy, and redundant at the same time. A link to List of WWE Hardcore Champions would serve the purpose much better with less trouble. B.Wind 14:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant information that doesn't need to be repeated over and over again. — Moe ε 16:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BlankVerse 13:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wrestling is an area particularly guilty of getting a little too fancy down the bottom of articles. Harro5 04:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. *drew 11:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 19:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{LACMTA-Blue}}, {{LACMTA-Expo}}, {{LACMTA-Gold}}, {{LACMTA-Green}}, {{LACMTA-Orange}}, & {{LACMTA-Red}} As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues, "Color coding of information should not be done...". Here are the templates in action: {{LACMTA-Blue}}, {{LACMTA-Expo}}, {{LACMTA-Gold}}, {{LACMTA-Green}}, {{LACMTA-Orange}}, & {{LACMTA-Red}}.

• Delete all. BlankVerse 13:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The templates {{Kwun Tong Line}}, {{Tsuen Wan Line}}, {{Island Line}}, {{Tung Chung Line}}, {{Airport Express}}, {{Tseung Kwan O Line}}, {{Disneyland Resort Line}}, {{Yonge-University-Spadina}}, {{Bloor-Danforth}}, {{Scarborough RT}} and {{Sheppard}} are similar. There are also similarly formatted links to Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation lines. Susvolans ⇔ 16:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only looked at one, Template:Disneyland Resort Line, and that's even worse because it calls another template to define the color! (see Avoid using metatemplates). My personal opinion is that they all violate the WP:MOS and should be deleted. BlankVerse 16:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of users whose browsers don’t render the Los Angeles templates in their full glory, the Toronto versions render as {{Yonge-University-Spadina}}, {{Bloor-Danforth}}, {{Scarborough RT}} and {{Sheppard}}. Susvolans [[User talk:Susvolans|⇔]] 08:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of which, as I pointed out at the beginning, violate the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Besides the reasons given in the MOS, I find the diferent colored links very distracting. Blank^Verse 14:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with use of colour in references, e.g. {{Railway lines in Wales}}, but not for the actual text links in regular use in the article. Chris (signature broken) 15:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the lot - not needed, generally pointless. Deano 23:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Bah. It could just be as easy as killing the color, but I found using those tempaltes a hell of a lot easier and far less cumbersome than constantly writing [[LACMTA Blue Line|Blue Line]] when it was so easy to write {{LACMTA-Blue}} line. *mutters darkly* Hbdragon88 21:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These templates are immensely helpful for differentiating between lines. The pages are much easier and more attractive to read - and it certainly saves a lot of time in writing out Wiki code. The MOS does not ban colour links specifically - it asks users to not use them where appropriate and if necessary to remember colour blindness. I think the colours of railway lines should be a good example of where you can use a coloured link, as long as it is not excessively done; it is an excellent reference to the line you are referring to - if we have tourist and other people reading a site like this it is helpful for them. Please keep it all. (JROBBO 12:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep - As the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting issues says, "It is certainly acceptable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it." And I totally agree with JROBBO.--Jeshii 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I created this template as an alternative to the tall-format Template:Resources for collaboration. I've deleted it from my userpage, and at this point only one user has it on theirs. Given such minimal usage, I no longer see benefit to the labor of maintaining it. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Korg (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template is a vehicle for linkspam -James Howard (talk/web) 21:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending further debate. This is, or seems to be, a structured way to create links to another website, not unlike {{ISFDB name}}. The site is a ratehr skeletal wiki -- i see no indications on a brief look that it is commercial. If this site has a relevant article on the same topic as a wikipedia article, I see no reason why this tempalte should not be sued to make a link. its use should be governed by the same reules as any other external link. Are ypou assertign that no link to this site is or is ever liukely to be proper? DES ^(talk) 22:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe we generally don't link to other Wikis with a template, unless they're Wikimedia sisterprojects. Template is orphaned, "Community of Knowledge-Worker" doesn't google, and TKC means a lot of other things but not this. So I'm afraid I don't see the point. Delete. Radiant_>|< 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is just spam. Also, per Radiant. Ashibaka (tock) 00:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. -James Howard (talk/web) 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Linkspam. *drew 02:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to the wiki's stats page [17], "there are 22 pages that are probably legitimate content pages" as of 16 November 2005. ^BlankVerse 15:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - external links are for the "External links" section, not for templates. It is designed for spam. Deano 00:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the bugs in HTML tidy have now been fixed, and people can no longer use invalid signatures, I don't think we'll be needing this template any more. Radiant_>|< 16:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove from the few places where it's used and speedy delete. Temporary template used for technical reasons. --cesarb 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Radiant. No longer needed. --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 23:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted per WP:IAR. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following templates are obsolete due to consolidation into a new version of {{web_reference}}:

1. {{web reference author}}
2. {{web reference complete}}}
3. {{web reference date format}}
4. {{web reference full}}
5. {{web reference publisher}}

• Delete: No longer needed. (SEWilco 03:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete as per SEWilco who has been doing a sterling job fixing {{Web reference}}, {{Book reference}} and {{Journal reference}}. —Phil | Talk 09:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually COGDEN did the grunt work on {{Journal reference}}. (SEWilco 20:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Sorry…nice work both of you then :-) —Phil | Talk 08:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not used in articles. — Adrian | Talk 20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the replacement is excellent. PAR 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Urgent question I have been using {{web reference author}} extensively in my articles. What will happen if this template is deleted? Will all my citations be lost? This would be incredibly annoying and in fact inimical to the goals of providing a reliable encyclopedia offering accurate and verifiable information. As a matter of fact, I'd probably prefer to use special purpose templates, so one solution might be for one of you wikiwizards to write a bot for me to find all my usages of the soon to be deleted template and replace them with my own template. But this raises another question: what if someone carelessly nominates my own templates for deletion after I have used them hundreds or thousands of times? It seems to me that if users creating fanciful templates is a problem, that creation of templates should require special privileges and that they should thereafter be protected against deletion. ---CH [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 15:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply — Given the fact that Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Web reference author shows only 12 articles using the {{web reference author}} template, I think that all your citations have already been converted. The new version of {{web reference}} makes most of the parameters of the template optional, so you can use it with just the parameters you use for {{web reference author}}. Thus, there should be no reason for your own template. — DLJessup (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As written above in the rules for this page here under "Closing" it is stated to "List the template in the correct part of the holding cell. After all instances of the template being used in articles have been removed, the template can be deleted by an admin". So, your template will *not* be deleted until all uses of it in articles haven ben converted to something else. Of course, I will help you to convert your articles to another one, If you like. Just drop me a message on my talk page or an email, if I should forget this. The holding cell can be found on the bottom of this page. – Adrian | Talk 14:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

old, experimental, obsolete, unused, and antiwiki. -- Zondor 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This template duplicates {{disambig}}. See Category talk:Miscellaneous disambiguations for extensive discussion on its pointlessness. Susvolans [[User talk:Susvolans|⇔]] 08:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep President takes precedence over other things; there have only been 43 of them, and each should receive this infobox. 65.28.2.172 14:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this vote was intended to be below, under the section for Template:Infobox President... CDC (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template:Miscdis - this can be much better handled by just using Template:Disambig - I'm not clear on why disambiguation needs to be categorized at all, let alone a separate "uncategorizable" category under the parent. CDC (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: superceded and replaced in every instance by {{language}}. Gareth Hughes 17:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Gareth. — mark ✎ 11:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Note that {{language}} has functionality to change "spoken in" to "signed in", etc. —jiy (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: was only ever used in Ido language, and has now been replaced by {{language}}. Gareth Hughes 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with the deletion, and the new template is worse. Somebody just came to the Ido page and changed the template to a somewhat uglier and less informative one. Were the new template the same as the last one I would have no problem with it. Note that the Ido symbol gets knocked out of the template and is just placed somewhere on the page willy-nilly. Mithridates 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete use general language template. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, all languages should use the general language template. Where do we end if each language can have its own template? — mark ✎ 11:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: redundant with {{Main}} and {{Details}}, adds a completely unnecessary colored bar across the article. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete!!! ^BlankVerse 14:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per User:Kirill Lokshin.--Dakota ^{t e} 17:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DON'T DELETE!'. Yes, it's redundant, but it's NICER! Else why don't you improve the {{Main}}? The "Lens" version is currently used in the Italian Wikipedia. Attilios
  • This isn't the Italian Wikipedia. ;-) Chris 11:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, yeah, why don't you just improve Template:Main? Also, will we let someone create an even nicer Template:MainBinoculars later? -- Perfecto  14:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In some ways I like the idea (being an aesthete) but this is a duplication of existing templates. violet/riga (t) 21:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Carnildo 22:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since we have fancy looking templates for many other things as well. I must agree with Attilios, and this template should be used more like it is on the Italian Wikipedia. It has values of its own, being the graphic and box, while the Main and Details templates do not. — Wackymacs 14:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Indeed redundant, though I encourage the author to propose making these changes to {{Main}} on Template_talk:Main – ClockworkSoul 05:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 00:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Full list here, all orphaned and redundant; versions exist without explicit font specifications which are much more useful. Phil | Talk 13:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Brace yourselves: there is another set which specify "default font" which I will put up for deletion once I check it's safe. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Woah, that's a lot of templates. Asuming they are all like the few dozen I sampled I'll say delete too, what do we need tables of unicode characters for every font under the sun for? Probably not much since they are not used (unless they are needed in some fancy template "magic" like all the "country alias" thingys the {{flag}} template use)). --Sherool (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a couple more that I removed {{unicode fonts}} from before I started the nomination thing: I've got to scan this lot to find what I might have missed.Now complete as far as I can tell. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: these are actually tables showing Unicode characters arranged by "block", which is how Unicode is sorted. There are other, nicer templates which do not specify particular fonts, which are much better for general use. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A random assortment of names someway involved in Formula 1 - in some cases, formerly and not for some time now. The "Famous drivers" section is hopelessly subjective, and the "Other personalities" perhaps more so. Erath 13:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: possibly replace with a box for Team Principals as that is quite useful... but in its current format it is pretty useless. Deano 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Dan | Talk 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is not the most useful navigational template in its current state, but it can be split into {{Current drivers in Formula 1}}, {{Formula 1 administration}}, and {{Formula 1 team management}}, which are not subjective. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nom. --Jamieli 17:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 18:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ugly. Unnecessary. Duplicating information one inch below it. Also straying into the minefield of royal house names; for example was Queen Victoria of the House of Saxe Coburg Gotha or the House of Wettin? (Don't answer that. It just starts edit wars! Also did she belong to a royal house or a noble house? Don't answer that or it will start the mother of all rows!) User talk:Jtdirl 05:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine: The box needs to meet a higher quality standard. information provided is good, but just needs to be better.-->Newyorktimescrossword 06:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - I created the template and have thus nullified it with some other projects. Please delete. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
  

–Whaleyland 08:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and an ugly colored box as well. ^BlankVerse 14:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion General Criterion #7. Its creator and sole editor (save Jtdirl, to add the TfD notice), KuatofKDY/Whaleyland, has requested its deletion. -Silence 23:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Most certainly DELETE it's more useless and ugly than a rotten tomato... Izehar 21:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Generalize: This template is only used by a handfull articles, and there is a template {{Infobox Biography}} that is used by more articles and have a simlar purpouse. My idea is if not delete this template, generalize it and make all other person-related templates to use it to be able to have a simlar look of all person related infoboxes. } --AzaToth ^talk 19:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I also oppose all or most use of the Biography Infobox on the basis that it provides information that is (1) already stated a few inches to the left at the very beginning of the articled, (2) space-consuming, and (3) does not provide any useful information whatsoever about the person in almost all cases—someone who comes to an encyclopedia article wanting to know about a person's life and his significance and historical/cultural import and so on is not given any valuable information at all by knowing where the guy was born and died, which is often little more than trivia. But either way, clearly having two templates for the same purpose is inefficient. Also, it is a direct violation of long-established Wikipedia guidelines to include an out-of-context quotation near the top of the article; the conflict between editors who love out-of-context quotations and editors who prefer that only quotations directly relevant to a part of the article text be used was finally resolved with the establishment of WikiQuotes. Let's not backtrack; remove this template from its only too articles, James Joyce and John Sturges (which doesn't have an image anyway), altogether—don't even bother replacing it with the Biography one. -Silence 20:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps then remove all references to this infobox, and reform it as a basic infobox for boxes like politican and bibliography. --AzaToth ^talk 00:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 13:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 19:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: I am the author and this template needs a speedy delete as per the terms of Wikipedia: Criteria for speedy deletion, criterion #7. The purpose of this template is being replaced by another, still in production.

Speedy deleted all under CSD G7. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This Template isn't useless but then again, who ever made this Template up is going a tad bit too far sensing all the eruption with the WorldTagTeamChampionship Template.--Kevmicester2000 01:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There's absolutely nothing wrong with this template. It serves an important purpose in related wrestling articles and the Royal Rumble is an important event in the wrestling world. Soltak | Talk 14:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a reason rather than a straight vote. TFD is not about the voting, but about the discussion. Radiant_>|< 13:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - duplicates a main article. This is another in a series of pro wrestling templates that have become redundant. B.Wind 05:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; at the Pro wrestling WikiProject we all agreed upon the deletion of these templates. It's just redundant to keep it. All the templates from these wrestlers pages have all been removed already. In addition to being redundant; its not being used! — Moe ε 00:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unaware of the discussion at the WikiProject; vote changed accordingly. Soltak | Talk 00:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! — Moe ε 00:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 19:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this one as a joke to answer someone's question below. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a user test. ^BlankVerse 18:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This otherwise-perfectly-good navbox has been obsoleted by merges into List of Metal Gear Solid characters. It's no longer in use, and it isn't even linked from anywhere but my own userspace. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Metal Gear Solid, my favorite video game. Although I love the foxhound logo, my favorite picture of all-time, I vote to delete according to the above statements. — Moe ε 02:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 23:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Stopvandalism, Template:STOPVANDALISMPLURAL, Template:STOPVANDALISMPLURAL(es) and Template:Stopvandalism(ing)

This very obtrusive template (Stopvandalism) is unlikely to deter vandals, and the message is better conveyed in a HTML comment that is visible only to those who edit the article. Its only real function is to spoil the article and make Wikipedia look unprofessional. Delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I created the derivatives, but not the original, but some people might be leery of such overimposing templates. What do you guys think? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know what? You guys have a point. Delete. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Much too obtrusive, verging on offensive. I'd like to see current uses removed immediately. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why not just post a big sign saying "Vandalise me"? Erath 18:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme delete this UGLY and OBNOXIOUS template before it gets added to the hundreds of articles that it could apply to. ^BlankVerse 18:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Overimposing" is a good way to put it. I just bumped into one and was shocked. Actually I think that these will have the opposite effect from the one intended--they're like a dare. Those anti-semites coming to the Jew article aren't going to be stopped by the template, and the presence of the thing makes the article look unprofessional. Antandrus (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Tony Sidaway. The Land 18:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This template is more effective vandalism of any article than actual vandalism is. What's next, a template warning people that too many templates are being used on this page? -Silence 18:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ayup! :) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also {{TooManyBoxes}}. —Cryptic (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • way ahead of you--ElvisThePrince 15:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed. This template is more obtrusive than much of the vandalism that it's designed to deter. – ClockworkSoul 18:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Immediately remove it from any articles. Carbonite | Talk 18:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it may serve its intended purpose, it is ugly and obtrusive. Guanaco 19:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, for the reasons cited above. {{STOPVANDALISMPURAL}} was created accidentally, so it should be speedily deleted. Incidentally, what's with the all-uppercase spellings, Rickyrab? —Lifeisunfair 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite message to say When editing this article, please remember that users who deliberately vandalise articles may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 00:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to edit the templates now. (You should, however, retain the "vandalize" spelling, as this was the creators' selection.) —Lifeisunfair 00:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're rewriting it, it's your decision. "Vandalize" and "vandalise" both work for me. Guanaco 07:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "vandalise," but I disagree with your interpretation of the MoS. If such a loophole were to exist, it would encourage users to rewrite non-stubs, purely as a formality that enables them to impose a particular English variety. —Lifeisunfair 17:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is correcting patently incorrect spelling and grammar "imposing"? :o) Chris 02:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delele. Not only does it look worse than is used to, but I had tried it, and it only stirs on the vandals.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 13:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 20:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't believe it's effective --pgk^(talk) 21:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete MONGO 14:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A case of pot-kettle-black. An unproductive template warning of making unproductive edits. If anything, likely to entice the vandals even more. Chris 02:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 23:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Should definitely be HTML comment only (and nicer!) --Allstar86 23:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A recent failed attempt to solve an inexistent problem. Request made by original creator. This TfD request explicitly also includes request to delete Template:book coauthor (without 's') and the redirects Template:book authors and Template:book author. – Adrian | Talk 10:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• We can probably speedy this if you like - nothing links there right? Pcb21 Pete 11:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge, theses templates are not instantiated in any article. Personally, I've nothing against speedying this (If this doesn't break any rule - I'm a bloody newbie). The only thing of value might be the discussion at Template: Book coauthors (i.e. the contributions by kgf0). Thanks! And sorry for causing this overhead. – Adrian | Talk 13:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per creator's nomination. An interesting concept. (SEWilco 14:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Question: I would like to keep this for a while on my user space just for thinking. Am I allowed to move Template:book coauthors to User:Adrian Buehlmann/book coauthors and Template:book coauthor to User:Adrian/book coauthorUser:Adrian Buehlmann/book coauthor? If yes, when (do I have to wait on some event)? The TfD request would still remain, but it would then contain only redirects. Sorry, I'm a newbie. Thanks! 22:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC) – Adrian | Talk 23:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and userfy it if it is an orphan. Just be sure to mark the redirect for deletion by using {{d}} after you did the move. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice: I userfied Template:book coauthors and Template:book coauthor as announced and marked the remaining four redirects with {{d}}. They have been deleted. – Adrian | Talk 08:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This template was recently created for the purpose of rating articles, and then giving graphical notice on the article mainspace. Since a validation Mediawiki feature is in the works, and should be deployed soon, I don't think that this template is needed. Also, giving every article a "trustworthiness" of one red bar isn't needed. We already have a disclaimer, and many of our articles are very trustworthy. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 15:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template is not in widespread use and is part of a proposal. We should see how things play out first - the use of graphical notification is a good one and could be used in conjunction with the mediawiki feature. Trödel|talk 15:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the proposal? If one exists, I'd like to read and comment on it. Blackcap (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I made it.) I'm aware of all that has happened regarding ratings and what is impending. I beg we count to ten, relax, and let the proof-of-concept percolate. It can only help. A discussion of the details of the template should probably happen at Template_talk:Rating. I promise I am not going to go around with a robot or like a robot adding it to hundreds of articles. The 10 I tried it on is my limit. Beyond that, let the community work. Tom Haws 15:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or if we keep it, put it on talk pages. The automatic trustworthiness of 1 is silly. If this is part of proposal then could someone direct me to a page decsribing the proposal (otherwise there isn't even a place to discuss the merits of this system or to discuss how it should be used) Broken S 16:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea to put it on talk pages. Discuss it and see response to trust attribute at Template talk:Rating. Tom Haws 16:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I suspect it's premature:
  • It would put the ratings straight into a use before we've seen what people tend to do with them.
  • Putting it on talk is possible, but is duplication of effort as the ratings tab for the article will show the average to date of each rating anyway!
  • I see what you're trying to do with "elementary-school-safe" and why we could benefit greatly from it, but quite a lot of people see just the bald tag as horribly POV, and I can see their point.
  • There's good reasons ratings are per version not per article - you can say something about a given version, but tomorrow your elementary-school-safe article might say "MR HENDERSON IS GAY" - David Gerard 17:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme kill. This type of template should be established by consensus policy, and not as an ad-hoc development. Furthermore, how are the current article "ratings" determined? I looked at four articles where the template had been placed, and I didn't agree with any of the ratings. ^BlankVerse 18:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the hell do we develop a consensus policy without having a sample template to look at? — Phil Welch 05:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need a template for that (because a template is likely to be used). You just need an example of the template code on the page where the discussion is being held. ^BlankVerse 15:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with those who suggest implementing this on the talk page for an article. I found this on Jane Fonda. I don't feel this early iteration should appear in articles yet. First of all, Wikipedia is not supposed to be elementary school safe. Second, it appears anyone can arbitrarily change the rating, versus compiling and averaging all user ratings. Finally, I imagine this will be the source of all sorts of POV-pushing unless we figure out a way to make the voting process as transparent as the editing process. This is an interesting idea that needs to be developed more before implementation. Jokestress 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Wikipedia is not elementary-school-safe. Else that rating would be included in "exemplary". But Wikipedia does want to be relevant, and perhaps to be included on initiatives like One Laptop Per Child. Any validation we end up with will have metrics/attributes to enable elementary-school-safe selections. Tom Haws 03:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, moving to talk page would mess things up, in the current form. Sam Spade 21:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete or Move to Talk page, This template is ugly, stands out too much, and I must absolutely agree with Jokestress on this one. This sort of template belongs on an article's Talk page because other templates such as the attention template also go on Talk pages. — Wackymacs 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is a good one, but it is not a reason to delete the template. Simply edit it to say "Demonstration. Not for article use." Tom Haws 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. While it is a good concept in theory, it isn't maintainable with current software. The first two ratings are completely POV. I might think "MR HENDERSON IS GAY" is school safe, and BlankVerse might not. Same for the "exemplary article" thing. I might think it's crap and someone else wonderful. It's only going to create revert wars for the rating. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, good point, but not a reason to delete. Tom Haws 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete for reasons stated above. This is inherently POV, and begins to censor (due to "elementary school safety"). I think that this is a poor idea, and a proposal and consensus is needed before this is used, regardless. See Wikipedia:Toby for a somewhat similar and rejected idea. Blackcap (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any validation system that is harmonized with the stated goals of Wikipedia as forwarded by Jimbo will contain benign attributes intended to allow elementary-school-safe selections. This is not a threat to Wikipedia or to any article. It should be clear from our explicitly stated community values that a low rating on elementary-school-safe is not a warning. I should think certain articles would be delighted to wear their low safeness rating. Tom Haws 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Of course, if Jimbo decides that he wants that, then there's nothing I can do, but I do not think that there is a way to rate an article's safety without violating our standards on neutral points of view and on censorship. I don't, however, want to debate the merits or disadvantages of this idea. As I have not seen any evidence of a proposal, then I don't think that this rating should be on any pages or even exist. If a proposal is drafted, then the existence of this template would be reasonable for the purposes of that proposal only, and should still remain off of articles until that proposal is finalized and consensed upon. Please, by all means, create a proposal. That would only do good in terms of explaining your idea and getting the community's opinions. Don't, however, apply this to pages withhout the community's support as evidenced by a proposal. Note: If such a proposal exists, then I apologize, but I haven't seen any trace of one, and it should be more obvious (by at least linking to it from the template in question, on via posts on the village pump). Either way, this template should be removed from the articles it is currently on until we either A: have it put upon us by Jimbo, like it or not, or B: consense upon this as a policy. As yet, neither of these things have happened. Blackcap (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, could you direct me to where the discussion with Jimbo is taking place? I haven't seen that, and would be interested in reading what's being said. Blackcap (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great points. Jimbo has stated repeatedly in interviews that he envisions distributing Wikipedia to school children in Africa, and he is currently concerned as expressed on the mailing list about quality and getting to print/cd. I believe the question is unresolved as to whether the value judgement of what goes in the elementary-school belongs at the early rating moment (as implied by this template) or at the late moment of selection. I discuss this in my last comments at Template talk:Rating. So I also see your point there. No disagreement at all (except I still ask that we Keep). Tom Haws 04:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... I'm glad that you feel that way. I see the discussion and proposal of a rating system as inevitable. I personally disagree with it. However, I would love it if you put together a formal proposal on the matter (I'm tempted to do it myself so that we can air this topic out). I have a lot of things to say on this issue, most of which are irrelevant to a TfD (so I won't bring them up here). Please do, it'd be nothing but a good thing to talk about the inevitable subject. If the proposal existed, then I would vote keep (and remove the template from pages) for proposal purposes. I'd suggest for you to userfy the template until such a time comes when the proposal is drafted and put forward to the community, then recreating it. *Whew!* Isn't discussion great? Why can't AfD be like this? Blackcap (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as with other warning templates. Who decides what an article is rated? Rhobite 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for proposal purposes only. Remove from all articles. — Phil Welch 06:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in my entire time here has tempted me as much toward WP:POINT. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • *grins* I had to laugh, as I felt the same way. Must... resist... Blackcap (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• erk! Rate this 0/10 and then strongly delete. We don't need no steenkeeng ratings bars! Grutness...wha? 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fundamentally flawed concept. The only objective way to "rate" an article (assuming we really wanted to) would be a new software feature similar to the one used by IMDb.com to determine best and worst movies. It would need to have a ruthless sockpuppet-filtering algorithm to be useful, though. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 09:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Warning/rating systems on things like elementry-school-safe have been overwhelmingly rejected by consensus time and again; attempting to move into "proof of concept" for them at this point despite their overwhelming rejection by the community is entirely inapproprate. If you really think that making a nice-looking template will help change people's minds, go ahead and make one in your user space; but don't use it on articles. --Aquillion 09:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rework: I think the concept is great and I would prefer it to be metawikied and more professionalized. However that can be done is beyond me. I think the rating bar should be much smaller, and possibly linear instead of stacked. The problem with POV is obvious, but in a true encyclopedia article, there should be no POV, only the statistics. HA! But it is worth a try. I suggest a major rework and possible integration into normal pages, maybe with some stub-like trigger added in for articles that are not rated so high. Just an idea.
  –Whaleyland 10:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree it needs to be on the talk page, and per version. -Visorstuff 00:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• One day, this might be useful. After all, what use is offering up all the knowledge we have if people can't access it in schools, libraries or their workplace? Unfortunately, in this state, it's irretrievably and inherently POV. So delete it. Chris 02:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are proposals in place for rating, that need the consensus of the community to be appliacable. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at talk pages. Seems like an interesting idea, yelling "consensus" and trying to kill it will only stifle experimentation and improvement. The elementary-school-safe criterion is a little flaky, though. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 16:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 23:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Baseline numbers are exactly two-thirds by my count. However, a template such as this should not be in use, at all, unless there is a change in policy to permit it. However, I would probably have no-consensused this since there's always room for discussion and rating/validation is a hot topic. That said, we are soon to get a validation feature properly in MediaWiki, so we do not need this anymore. That taken together with the numbers, and the lack of any reasoning on the part of several keepers gives me grounds enough to delete. -Splash^talk 18:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Confused image licensing terms. It's also apparently a no-commercial-use license, and so any images that use it may be speedily deleted anyway. Eric119 03:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's also incorrect. At least in the United States, patent applications are automatically in the public domain. --Carnildo 00:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what happened with this: the "upload file" license selection menu had an entry for {{patent}}, describing it as "Patent material - public domain", but no corresponding template actually existed. A number of images were uploaded and tagged with the template. Eventually, someone came along and followed one of the resulting redlinks, and created the template, giving us the mess that now exists.

Just to make things more exciting, only two of the 76 images that used to be tagged with this template were really public-domain images from United States patent applications. I hope this sort of error level isn't typical of image tagging in general. --Carnildo 23:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Template:PD-US-patent — Matt Crypto 23:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 20:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. It might make sense to replace the content of this template with the version of it at Commons. --Fastfission 03:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the Pro Wrestling WikiProject we came to the conclusion that we do not need the following templates. The information listed in them are useless and redundant to the original article. In addition the templates have been removed from every page it was listed on, so they are now useless.

— Moe ε 01:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote to delete the following templates:

• Template:WWEchampions
• Template:WWEICchampions
• Template:WWEWomenschampions
• Template:WWEHeavyweight
• Template:WWEUSchampions
• Template:CruiserweightChampions
• Template:WWETagchampions
• Template:WWEEurochampions
• Template:WWELWChampions
• Template:KOTRWinners
• Template:OVWHeavyweightChampionship
• Template:OVWTVChampionship
• Template:OVWSouthernTagChampions
• Template:OVWHardcoreChampionship
• Template:WCWchampions
• Template:WCWWorldTelevisionChampionship
• Template:WCWHardcoreTitle
• Template:ECWChampions
• Template:ECWTVchampions
• Template:NWATNAChampions
• Template:NWATNATagTeamChampions
• Template:XDivisionChampions
• Template:ROHChampions
• Template:ROHChampions
• Template:ROHPureChampions
• Template:IWGPchampions

• Comment. Some of those templates are still on articles, but delete. —jiy (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I went threw and took off the remaining templates. Thanks for telling me! They only link to here, the pro wrestling wikiproject and a user's page. — Moe ε 17:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The ECW and WCW Templates can stay cause they are never going get any bigger than they are right now. --Kevmicester2000 00:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - At the pro wrestling Wikiproject page we decided to replace any templates with succession boxes, boxes are a more resonable than the templates. Besides, we already removed them and are starting to replace them. — Moe ε 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at the very least userfy: Copy and paste is just as good. Also, this should always be subst'd and the one time it was used it was included (not subst'd). I also unprotected this temlpate because I think that templates shouldn't be up for deletion while they are protected (so people have the opportunity to fix them. Broken S 18:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll userfy now. Also, i'm blocking the user it was made in regards to for 48 hours for harrassment in regards to this template, which was made in response to his non-stop harrassment. Karmafist 19:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a template for this? Titoxd^(?!?) 02:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided template. 17 USC 108(d) is about the right of libraries and archives to make copies for their clients for their personal use; it does not imply any rights for republication of said copies. Delete this quickly. Lupo 12:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "no more than one copy" (from the cited law) is a long way from putting something on the web. I think the CSU Archives would be quite surprised to hear that their holdings are in the public domain. Chick Bowen 18:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created this template, without knowing the complete licensing policies of Wikipedia. It deserves to be deleted immediately. -- Clevelander 00:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Done. Lupo 08:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a tag test and my mouse accidentally hit the "save page" button. Please delete this ASAP. -- Clevelander 23:01, 21 November 2005

• Your wish is my command. – ClockworkSoul 05:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Almost unused and obsolete by template:Infobox software. David Björklund 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 20:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom --대조 | Talk 18:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The contents of this template were merged into {{Spirituality}} and it was replaced by the updated template on the applicable pages. (See discussion on this template's talk page.) — Richard<RDF</<talk 16:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC) — Richard<RDF</<talk 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. {{Spirituality}} no longer contains the sections from this template. {{Spiritual practices}} covers an important range of topics. — Richard<RDF</<talk 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vaugeness of topic leads to eclectic and POV inclusions. Actually an religious practice could equally claim to be included - so pretty inexaustible, and useless to boot. This is what we have categories for. --Doc <ask?</ 17:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Two related templates are nominated for deletion at the same time. The content of {{Spiritual practices}} was merged into {{Spirituality}}. Consequently, the decision for #Template: Spirituality should be made before the decision for #Template: Spiritual practices. — Richard<RDF</<talk 17:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I removed the sections of {{Spiritual practices}} from {{Spirituality}}. These templates no longer overlap. — Richard<RDF</<talk 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I agree, this nomination should be withdrawn until after the debate on {{Spirituality}} has been concluded. --bainer (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The template is POV - and NPOV is not negotiable: delete regardless of the fate of any other template. --Doc <ask?</ 22:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this in light of the conclusion of the discussion on the other template mentioned above, and the nature of the dependency indicated here. There is also too little firm decision to reach a useful conclusion either way. Note that {{Spirituality}} has been deleted. -Splash^talk 21:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 20:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With no more support and an addition (unreasoned) deleter in the additional week, coupled with the fact that this has been removed in every article it once lived in, I'm going to take this as ok to delete. -Splash^talk 03:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, unused, orphaned, and useless. -- Zondor 10:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inappropriate subject matter for a template to begin with. BD2412 T 22:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Borisblue 18:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sister-project template for a project that isn't a sister project. Raul654 10:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and with only four instances, don't even turn it into an external-link template. —Cryptic (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-Wikimedia project template. Lord Bob 18:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar 19:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—don't turn into an external link template. ^BlankVerse 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yikes. Definitely delete; took me coming here to realize this is not a sister project. Not good! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-29 04:00:04Z

Previously in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, this is now unused since Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures) (AfD discussion) was deleted. Should not be used elsewhere, either. —Cryptic (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, WP:NOT censored. Blackcap (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree shouldn't be used pgk^(talk) 08:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now unused since {{storm path}} provides the same features. Jdorje 07:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 22:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Redundant with Template:Spoiler and Template:Spoiler-about. Also seems to be unused. Eric119 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per the above. I suspect that the creator misunderstood the application of {{spoiler-about}}. —Lifeisunfair 23:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Monkbel 11:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Was only used at list of flags, apparently as some sort of prank. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Have been deprecated by {{booleq}}. {{iftrue}} is deprecated by same reason. --AzaToth ^talk 21:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: {{iftrue}} is not used any longer, except on some talk and user pages --AzaToth ^talk 23:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Although this template is now unnecessary, it is still used by a lot of templates, and may be logically useful. Updating the templates to {{booleq}} is needed before this is deleted. --Gareth Hughes 11:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete same rason as Template:Norway infobox below. --Sherool (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I'm not really sure. Might be a delete. Chris 18:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete it's blanked, unused and redundant with Template:Infobox Country, unfortunately no CSD criterea fit so I guess we need a rough consensus first. --Sherool (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you believe it, I'm really not sure about this one. Remote possibility that this article should be deleted. Chris 18:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its been blank for a month with no objections. --Aquillion 18:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This template is used to notify that the original article will be back tommorrow. Besides being badly misspelled, I can see no use for this. This may be a [hardly] funny template but it is a useless one, at least for 5 months hence. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Izehar 11:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the concept of fun will henceforth be regulated by policy, and a hand-picked cadre of admins of long-standing will vet all potential April Fools' jokes before deciding which ones will be allowed. Users will be warned in advance that the article they are reading contains a joke or jokes, that these jokes are, in fact, funny, and that they are permitted to laugh decorously at them. Above all else, there shall be no spontaneity. Users attempting to insert unvetted jokes will be blocked for up to one week, as shall users who fail to find a vetted joke amusing. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, its only useful on April Fools day, but I wanted to see how to do it, as I've never written a linking template before. My proposal on the policy page was that people should develop serious April Fools jokes as ./AprilFools during Febuary, and place this template at the end of the article. On April 1st, they could move the original article . to ./NotAprilFools, and move the ./AprilFools to . The template provides an easy way for the original article to be accessible, and via "What links here" to identify unfixed pranks on April 2nd. The general consensus of the policy page discussion of this proposal is that no special policy is needed for April 1st, but presumably the use of such a procedure & template will prevent some fights and confusion. As you say, 5 months is a long time away, but the templates existance helps advertise this method of April 1st prank cleanup. JeffBurdges 12:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We were still cleaning up silly vandalism done on 2005-04-01 six months later. Anything that encourages vandalism of Wikipedia should be strongly discouraged. Uncle G 12:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandals will hardly use the template, serious editors who like a joke will fix things themselves. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It will only encourage vandalism. ^BlankVerse 15:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could not 1 April be autoreverted? --AzaToth ^talk 15:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. People seem quite afraid that talking about pranks will encourage them. Maybe we should just blank this template for now and resume the discussion in February or March? JeffBurdges 17:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The intentional insertion of false information into Wikipedia articles is vandalism (on any day of the year). April Fool's Day pranks are to be expected, but they should not be tolerated (let alone sanctioned or encouraged) —Lifeisunfair 17:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't like beeing fooled and it doesn't have anything to do here on wikipedia - David Björklund (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well intentioned, but it's still vandalism -- stillnotelf has a talk page 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful. *drew 23:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete or possibly userfy. Grutness...wha? 03:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Does userfy work with a template? Or is it just to keep it around? Would it just be a move to "User:JeffBurdges/Sandbox/Template:AprilFools"?

• Oh lord no. Kill it with fire. Raul654 09:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Filiocht. — mark ✎ 13:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I realise I'm in the minority here, but I seriously don't see what's wrong with it. Borisblue 06:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. April Fools is not an excuse to perform vandalism. -Sean Curtin 01:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous speedy listed in this log since it was deleted this month.

Delete was only used on Image:Mig-31 firefox.jpg (I substed it), aside from beeing "one shot" it also basicaly describe a depreciated "with permission only" licence. Not even gonna comment on the the name o_O --Sherool (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes. I can't imagine any reason we'd need this. Delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• For the love of Jimbo, make it go away. Chris 08:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously, Mr. Beswick misunderstood the nature of wiki templates. —Lifeisunfair 23:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't we just have a Speedy Delete so we get rit of it? Please... –AzaToth ^talk 23:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote I deleted the image (under CSD I3) where it is used, so the template is now an orphan. Wikiacc (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted, no need to have this languishing for a week, and we really need some CSDs for templates such as this. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]