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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For an index of all TfD archives, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Template:semi-policy[edit]

Deprecated. Use Template:Guideline instead. Radiant_* 14:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

      • Had no consensus earlier, but I'm relisting it on grounds that Category:Semi-policy has been deleted, and the keep voters hadn't been aware of the fact that semi-pol has simply been renamed to guideline, which was created about a month ago. Radiant_* 09:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - semi-policy concept said that there are unwritten, common sense rules to which people can be held accountable. Well, if they're unwritten, how can pages on the wiki be so-marked? -- Netoholic @ 15:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Netoholic's right. James F. (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mrfixter 16:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect template:proposed -SV|t 21:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though in these deprication matters I think we do need to accept the need for some "ambiguously policy" tag. Redirect to Template:Ambiguous Keep - BlankVerse is right. Don't depricate terms legislatively. Snowspinner 04:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Disagree with both redirects - a 'semi-policy' is not usually 'proposed', nor is it 'ambiguous'. Radiant_* 09:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Semi-policy has been "Deprecated" without adequate discussion. Thus deleting this template is setting policy which shouldn't happen here. BlankVerse ∅ 11:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons explained on Wikipedia talk:Semi-policy. Zocky 16:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To join the majority -SV|t 19:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other existing classifications are sufficient, and adding more just adds confusion. -- Beland 01:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not not adding one classification, it's deleting one. BlankVerse ∅ 15:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume Template:Semipolicy will be deleted as well? (It should be, since it just redirects to Template:Semi-policy.) -- Beland 02:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agree with BlankVerse. Jonathunder 13:47, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep --- agree with BlankVerse. This is a sneaky way to undermine the policy process. — Xiong熊talk* 07:37, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • In response to the above two votes, please read BlankVerse's talk page; I do believe I have convinced him. Semi-pol hasn't been deprecated, it's been renamed to 'guideline'. Radiant_* 09:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • WRONG! I am still convinced that you and the small group of people that have been organizing the Wikipedia policy pages have not just been organizing them so that they are easier to understand (which was a very good thing and was desperately needed), but you have been "reorganizing" them and have been making major changes in Wikipedia policy. I am still convinced that originally there was Policy, Guidelines, and Semi-Policy, and that one entire category of Wikipedia rules and procedures has been eliminated because the group doing the reorganization did not like or understand the ambiguity of the Semi-Policy category. I also find it disturbing that these changes have been made without any major discussions, or any announcements at WP:RFC, or Wikipedia:Current surveys. It's okay to Be Bold! on non-controversial Wikipedia articles, but the watchwords for Wikipedia policy should be "Be cautious", and "Seek consensus". BlankVerse ∅ 10:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So respond to your talkpage already. CATEGORY:GUIDELINES was created ONE MONTH AGO [1]. Radiant_* 10:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep -- This is a sneaky, underhanded way to undermine policy for private ends. — Xiong熊talk* 10:18, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Keep I've seen it used Falphin 17:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read up on what has happened lately - it is no longer used. Radiant_* 07:04, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep semi-policy~=guideline. Template:Guideline on something like Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is simply misleading. I'm sure most of editors don't endorse censorship on Wikipedia. Grue 10:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some pages may be miscategorized - Wikipedia:Sofixit. Most editors do endorse RPA. Radiant_* 10:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Look at the survey on the Talk page or WP:RPA. It has, at most, a bare majority of votes for making it policy, so there is certainly no consensus. I've seen editors who regularly use the page as policy, but I've seen it mostly used as part of a suggestion—that is, remove your personal attack or I will do it for you. I've also seen editors who have become very irate when something that they have written was removed based upon RPA, and I've seen editors who absolutely do not like having any attacks removed from their Talk pages. I don't think NPA "fits" as a Guideline, but it did "fit" as Semi-Policy. BlankVerse ∅ 11:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This really belongs on RPA:Talk. Note that 1) consensus is not determined by voting; 2) RPA has seen regular use for the past years and thus is de facto accepted, and 3) this is only true by your definition of semi-policy, which (unlike guideline) is not a term found in any dictionary. You consider semi-pol weaker than guideline, but lots of people think the exact opposite. Radiant_* 11:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • I object to your assertion #2. Please do not attempt to overrule the clearly demonstrated lack of consensus by decree. (That said, I find RPA is a good idea to just go ahead and do, and think it's better not to have a specific policy for it) --Unfocused 04:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that WP:RPA is controversial; see Wikipedia_talk:Remove_personal_attacks for a discussion. Please check RPA's edit history for a number of people adding or removing various classification tags. Radiant_* 08:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • I've archived old stuff from RPA:Talk and advertised the discussion on WP:W, RFC etc, in an attempt to get consensus (not vote) on whether this should be policy, guideline, discouraged or forbidden. Radiant_* 11:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, in a lot of cases semi-policy makes more sense than guideline. --W(t) 15:37, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've looked through some of the contents of Category:Guideline and all of the articles there appear to have had their {{Semi-policy}} replaced with {{Guideline}} unilaterally by the people supporting the current deletion with no discussion on any of the pages. In fact ... Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Maintenance was moved from Category:Wikipedia_official_policy to Category:Wikipedia_guidelines, unilaterally and without discussion on the page, 2 days ago. There is definitely likely (or it smells like) a revisionist agenda in play here. Courtland 17:25, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
    • Revised Vote = Delete. I've been told by an admin @ WP:VFD that the page I pointed at wasn't really policy even though it was labeled policy. In that case, I question now whether policy of any kind can be maintained in the face of determined editors. All this policy/nonpolicy talk has now taken on a different light ... much of it just prattle interfering with building an encyclopedia. So, bottom line is there really isn't any such thing as policy - it's all just suggestions of conduct; and consensus - what's that in the face of being bold? Therefore, just delete away, folks. Courtland 02:12, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand why semi-policy has been disposed of. It was slightly confusing, yes, but I think it was an important distinction. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SoM 17:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Votes are roughly tied, which means no consensus, which means the template is kept. Since there is no consensus, it may be worth considering if this template should be reworded or redirected. Radiant_* 07:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Memoryalpha[edit]

Nominated by User:Metaeducation, who didn't list it here. Request deletion presumably on the same grounds as Template:Hrwiki discussed below, i.e. Advertising for a non-Wikipedia partner. Why should Memory Alpha get such extravagant publicity? Add the link to the Wiki in the External Links. I'm abstaining for now. Radiant_* 10:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not more extravagant than ("advertising" {D'oh!} for) Wikispecies... --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same purpose as {{Hrwiki}}. Leave this to the trekkies to orphan. Then we could delete it, but I see no reason to do so now. --MarSch 12:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See my comments under the deletion nomination for Template:Hrwiki. BlankVerse ∅
    • Also: To User:Metaeducation: This nomination is counterproductive. If you really wanted us to consider keeping Template:Hrwiki you should not have nominated this template. Now TFD voters are going to be much more likely to say "delete both", rather than carefully consider the points that I brought up in the Template:Hrwiki discussion. BlankVerse ∅ 13:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A good point, and if I thought a template was the right solution, this would certainly fall under Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. But as it happens, I am not too interested in the survival of either template. I'm just interested in the creation of a policy page which helps meet the need that the templates were trying to fill. What you're pointing out is that VfD may not be the right venue for developing a solution; you're probably right there. User:metaeducation
  • Delete unless Hrwiki is kept. Consistency. Grue 13:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but much smaller, more along the lines of {{imdb name}}: should be used for making good links to Memory Alpha without the advertising. --Phil | Talk 13:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's no "advertising" because no one wants to sell something... --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually agree with that; if it is kept, it should be trimmed a bit, it's too much of an eye-catcher (considering that Template:Wiktionary is pretty small). Radiant_* 13:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I don't accept that a project like Wikispecies has the right for such a template and the MA not. And the Wiktionary template is not smaller, not on my screen. And yes, it is an eye-catcher, because it shall be one - imo, many Trek-articles that use it belong only to the MA because Wikipedia is not a Wiki for (all) fictive terms. (Or only for well-known like Ork or Darth Vader e.g.) If an eye-catcher can contribute to less specific Trek articles here and redirect them to MA, it's better for WP and MA. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, see above. Memoryalpha article will be changed too, I just had a lack of time. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; allowing this would allow everyone to advertise here. -- Ec5618 13:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep; Changed my mind. In its current form, it's quite acceptable. The distinction between Wikipedia and Memory Alpha is clear. We should probably set up some advertising guidelines though (something like: 'only non-profit, no agenda wikis, with a reasonable userbase' may advertise) So, any such tempates: debox, simple text will be fine. -- Ec5618 09:10, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
It's no advertise... -- Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising doesn't necessariy have money in mind. -- Ec5618
  • Delete. If the material on Memory Alpha is significantly better and really adds something, just use the external links section, that's what it's there for. --W(t) 15:26, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
MA must not be better, it shall redirect the contributors to the responsible Wiki for Trek-terms, and that's not Wikipedia. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the other reasons mentioned here, for aesthetic reasons. We already had a number of External links to Memory Alpha, which have been replaced with this template, so now we have External link sections that only contain this box hanging off the right side. The External links were fine as they were, the template is ugly. AlistairMcMillan 16:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that it is changed to be more like the IMDB template as suggested by Phil. Otherwise Delete. AlistairMcMillan 22:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not uglier than the Wikispecies template. (Maybe you viewed it on Andorian e.g. - then you are right, but thats the guilt of "*" in front of the template...) The problem with placement concerns also other templates, and in the articles where I added it, I placed it better (on the top) - unfortunately some people changed this... --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trek is iconic to pop culture in a manner which few others can claim. Advertising can't be a concern when including items in an encyclopedia, or the extreme result would be no entries for any branded products. We have Tolkien stubs, etc. Are they next? Ayeroxor 05:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: A highly valuable indiciator that additional info exists on science fiction Star Trek articles. Should stay in all Star Trek articles. -Husnock 06:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but downsize -- Useful to have a template for consistent linking. Good to put the link under External Links. Better to reduce its overall importance. Best to move 90% of Trek-related fancruft to Wikipedia:Wikifan — Xiong熊talk* 14:16, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Consent to the idea of bringing Trek articles to an own platform, but the ("bigsize") temp shall do exactly this by redirecting the contributors to MA and "keep them away" ;-) from here. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but downsize to original single-line (non box, no graphic) version. I am the original author of this template, and as is explained on Template talk:Memoryalpha I think this template should be used for several reasons. Most importantly, this is preferable to using simple hyperlinks because this creates an easy-to-detect explicit connection between two databases that could potentially be used in a JOIN operation at some point in the future. This is hardly "advertising" for Memory Alpha; MA is a non-profit wiki site that provides the kind of information people reading Star Trek articles on wikipedia are looking for. Template:imdb_name could more credibly be said to be "advertising", because IMDB is an ad-supported Amazon company (whereas the ads on MA are placed there by their wikicities host afaik). But obviously imdb_name is good too, because it gives readers the information they want. This template was only recently expanded (by someone else) to be a big box like the wikimedia sister projects' templates all use. I am now going to revert that change to make this more like the imdb template, so that it only takes up one line of text. ~leif ☺ (talk) 20:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
You're right, IMDB is commercial, MA not, and MA is a kind of sister of the WP, that's why I changed it (and other things, see above). --Memory 21:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General: I won't accept a deletion because all Wiki projects have the same right to be mentioned (and linked) here, not only "official partners" like Wikispecies. That's not the Wiki idea. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

err since when did the wiki idea extend to how to link to other wikies?Geni 15:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the old version --Memory 13:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you do, then it will be speedy deleted since that would be subverting this vote. --mav 15:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Despite the fact that Template:Hrwiki was also re-formulated as unobtrusive text, someone decided there was consensus in deleting it. If there is a popularity metric involved in allowing such templated external links, it seems that should be laid out in a guideline somewhere. (Where?) If there is a performance-driven motivation to disallow templates in the external links, those should be weighed against the longer-range implications of denormalizing the data. Metaeducation 09:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's obvious that among this group, the idea is to limit graphical "adboxes" to official sister-wikis only. Is there a place in a policy page where this can be mentioned, as well as an outline of what it takes to become a sister-wiki (if that is possible for a third party not hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation at all?) Metaeducation 09:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cburnett 16:56, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if kept in its small non-box form. A suggestion: Put the external link first, not the internal link to the article on Memory Alpha. commonbrick 15:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't (appear to) endorse any source aside from other Wikimedia projects. — Dan | Talk 02:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Dan Trödel|talk 03:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Memory Alpha is a good site with useful information. Samboy 06:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Template:Mendelevium[edit]

An unused template that is almost larger than the text that it creates (it's just a WikiLink, so it shouldn't be a template anyway). BlankVerse ∅ 16:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 16:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • changed to undecided. I can't decide if this qualifies as a "foolish inconsistency", or a reasonable precaution. In any event, it doesn't seem to be used, and it seems likely that it will never be used, so deleting it will cause no harm. BlankVerse ∅ 04:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's subst:ed, it doesn't save any characters; it costs you three more. And there's no reason to transclude it unless one expects the name or symbol for mendelevium to change any time soon. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused. And it is an inappropriate way to use a template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and hold -- and probably move to a better name. It looks like a useful tool, and certainly does not "cost" anything. But the whole value of such a tool is ease of use, and it might have been named Template:Md, except that the creator wisely feared name conflict. Let me get in touch with the creator, find out how she is using this template -- obviously, she's substituting it -- and see what must be done to fix it. — Xiong熊talk* 22:13, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be quite silly to delete this, as these templates are useful for creating linked chemical formulas in a standard and easily typed manner — e.g., {{carbon}}{{subst:sub|6}}{{hydrogen}}{{subst:sub|6}} produces C6H6, the formula for benzene. I don't know offhand where an odd element such as mendelevium might actually be used in this way, but it would be strange for some elements to be excluded. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • (Ah, so that's what {{sub}} was for!) Keep this template then. --cesarb 01:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this inappropriate use of a template. Use copy paste instead. --MarSch 16:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Another class of templates that could benefit from this feature. JRM · Talk 22:11, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. The m:WikiTeX extensions include methods of encoding chemical formulae, so when these are eventually integrated into MediaWiki this template will no longer be necessary: it will then be much easier to find formulae to update if these templates are still in use. --Phil | Talk 14:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Template:EMD diesels, Template:British Rail Locomotives, Template:British Rail DMU, and Template:British Rail EMU[edit]

All these templates are huge and they are flooding Special:Wantedpages with requests for British Rail Classes. I see no reason why they can't be replaced by categories. At the very least they should be split up with a separate template for each type. - SimonP 18:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • keep. Every one of the BR clases is encycolopaedic, although some can be combined into one article (e.g. 220/221). The information is out there, and I find these templates very useful for navigation between the classes as they provide a very useful summary of the classes, particularly with reagard to what generation the DMU/EMU/DEMU each class is. Thryduulf 21:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As said above these templates are very useful. They also easily show the various different classifications used for the same type of locomotive/unit (i.e. pre-1968, TOPS etc.). As for the argument they are generating requests for British Rail Class xx articles, eventually all articles will be created so this is fairly irrelevant. If the templates are too big they can be condensed by using 90% text size. Our Phellap 01:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list or category, this is far too large and unwieldy for a template. Radiant_* 09:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only until all the redlinks on the template get their own article. When that day arrives I will support turning these into a categories instead. Sjakkalle 11:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gawd, they're huge! These templates are train-cruft that are meaningless to the average Wikipedia user. They should either be Converted to lists or categories or drastically shrunk. For example, Template:EMD diesels could list only the various classes of locomotives (switchers, 4-axle, 6-axle,streamliners, experimentals, etc.) of EMD diesels (but NOT the trains themselves), and the links would go to overview articles on each class. BlankVerse ∅ 11:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are already the categories Category:British Rail diesel locomotives, Category:British Rail electric locomotives, Category:British Rail gas turbine locomotives, Category:British Rail diesel multiple units and Category:British Rail electric multiple units which all of the British Rail Class xx articles are listed under (the category isn't part of the template to facilitate sorting of articles under each category).
    • However, simply listing the articles under categories will remove a useful navigational tool that only a template can provide. For example, the British Rail Class 421 has at various time also been known as a 4Cig, 3Cop, 8Dig, 8Mig and 3Cig - which the template Template:British Rail EMU shows by highlighting all the above names in bold (this explains why the template is large since it has links to one particular article several times). A category cannot show this, and furthermore since redirects cannot be categorised, redirects cannot be used as an alternative. If size is really a problem (rather than just an asthetic comment) then I suggest using 90% font size for each template as to reduce the overall size. Our Phellap 13:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No wonder they are so huge—they have multiple links going to the same article. That's unnecessary in a information template. I've just looked at a bunch of the articles that the templates are on, and often the templates are larger than the articles themselves—especially since many of the articles have one or more additional templates and/or tables. These templates are really trying to do something that is much better handled in a list (see List of GM-EMD locomotives for an example). My decision has been reduced to Convert to list BlankVerse ∅ 13:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have produced a reduced size EMU template at Template:British Rail EMU/test for comparison. The other templates can be modified similarly. Our Phellap 11:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The whole point of navigation templates is to have links conveniently sorted in a way that categories can't do, or that list only the most relevant identification information without descriptions. Categories and lists have their place (and indeed we are using both in Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains), but navigation templates have their place too. slambo 20:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Big, bold and brash. However, there are few other examples of such excellent navigation aids when one wants to browse similar articles. I wouldn't recommend trying to apply similar techniques to other articles, but these work well for this subject matter. --Unfocused 19:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful navigational aid between related articles. Any problem with Special:Wantedpages can be eliminated by quickly stubbing out all the red links. I might note that Wantedpages lists highest multiple vandal pagemoves, and then a vast number of US Navy ships which are on there for similar reasons. —Morven 20:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. How about sticking this template on a portal for these trains or some other article and replace all other instances by a link to the portal? --MarSch 14:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Page fixing tools[edit]

Some collaboration pages used this template for a while, but have since been switched back to the more comprehensive Template:Resources for collaboration without complaint, as far as I know. Mostly it's now just linked from user pages, and I wonder whether it shouldn't just be redirected to or replaced by "Resources for collaboration". I checked, and "Page fixing tools" this is indeed entirely a proper subset of "Resources for collaboration".-- Beland 03:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect seems to be the most apropriate course of action for a superceded template that is still linked to in places. Thryduulf 21:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's still in use on user pages, shouldn't we ask any currently active users who have it if they'd like to keep using this, or would rather use the more comprehensive version? Some may prefer the simpler version. I know I wouldn't be happy if someone cut a template out from under my user page without asking me. --Unfocused 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- What possibly reason is there to delete this? It's a toolbox, somebody once found it useful, somebody probably finds it useful now, and somebody may find it useful again. Do you imagine that there will be a desperate need in the near future to put some other content in this same place? Do you fear somebody will use these tools? Do you hope that by taking the tools from editors' hands, they will stop working? Anyone who so desires may use it; nobody is forced to do so. Anyone who wants a different toolbox can make or borrow another. This nomination is inappropriate. — Xiong熊talk* 22:28, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. Invective aside, some editors apparently find the template useful and it doesn't seem to do any harm. As a courtesy, it might be worthwhile to mention to them that there is a more comprehensive toolset template available, in case they want to upgrade. Someone might want to add a link to Template:Resources for collaboration, perhaps wikilinked as More tools... or somesuch.
    • Don't I feel blind. The link is already right at the bottom of the template box. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Go use the talk page of this template, Beland or just be bold, if you want a redirect. This page is for proposing deletions. --MarSch 14:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Seemain[edit]

According to what it's written on its talk page, this template is used in the section and the Template:Main is for the top of the article. But look at the "what links here" page of both of the templates: "Seemain"" is rarely used, and "Main" is located in most of the times on top of the sections. So what is the use of this template? 500LL 09:29, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: As it also says in the Talk page, the purpose of the templates are different and the appearance may also change. In essense, "Seemain" tends to be links from parent articles to child articles, while "Main" is for a single link in a child article up to the parent article. Different templates allows Wikipedia to distinguish the intent behind the links. As for the frequency of usage, note that "Seemain" has acquired its list during its existence of only three months. Template author: (SEWilco 15:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
But look at the template "main", it's never used on top of the page, and always in the sections to link to child articles. So what is the point in "Seemain"? 500LL 07:47, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, people were misusing "main", which is one reason "seemain" was created. The point is so Wikipedia can distinguish the two types of usage. For example, it might later be decided that links to general coverage of a topic should be marked by large blinking labels, and that can be done by changing Template:main. Or semantic mapping of WP may find the different meanings of the links to be useful. (SEWilco 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. I would hope that "What links here" shows it is rarely used; it's boilerplate text that shouldn't change with time and should therefore be subst:ed wherever it is used. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib)
One good point, whoever said the above, someone may use subst:. So I added an HTML comment which identifies the generating template. However, one of the reason for using templates is because boilerplate may change. But the dynamic or static behavior of templates is an implementation detail; labeling the intent of the link is the significant difference. (SEWilco 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The definition is presently the same; I chose the same definition to avoid breaking things, but there are many definitions with more meaning: "For details see:", "Detailed information:", "Related article:". The usage and intent are different. (SEWilco 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep The two places the template(s) can be used are very distinct in meaning, so should use different templates. They probably should be different in appearence, but that may be difficult (given the example of the uproar against a recent indent change on T:Main). Nevertheless the templates can be different in wikicode & html to signal the different use. -R. S. Shaw 04:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but what is the use of "Seemain" if the template "main" is used the same way?500LL 09:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
After just using them in exactly the opposite way intended, I agree that they need to be replaced by something a bit more clear. Thus I recast my vote to rewrite and possibly (move and delete the old), see Template_talk:Main for a suggestion. --MarSch 10:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the existing summary of usage needs some expansion. I'm waiting for this vote to conclude, and after further documentation then I'll invite a bot to scan main and seemain uses and fix obvious errors. Actually, further documentation will come after I finish testing of some improvements, such as multiple references. (SEWilco 02:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC))
I have created the alternatives {{seesubarticle}} and {{subarticleof}}, which are hopefully not confusing. Perhaps someone should tag them with a "proposed template" template ;\ --MarSch 11:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:explain-significance[edit]

Redundant - there are many other, better cleanup templates. — Dan | Talk 02:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Disagree. This is a good template to use for an article that would otherwise risk outright deletion. --Alabamaboy 02:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Which templates did you have in mind as replacements, Dan? Template:Unencyclopedic doesn't quite serve the same purpose, but we might be able to come up with a single notice that could unify the two. -- Beland 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I will point out that this template was created in full knowledge that similar templates existed, because certain people were doing things like going through every single article that had been tagged with those templates and ripping them out, because they referred to "non-policy". This template was specifically designed so that people who do have concerns about significance can actually address those concerns by saying "if this subject does have some form of notability, please consider bringing it to the fore" without intolerant Wikipedians having an excuse to declare that all concerns about importance are non-policy and therefore will not be heard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, widely in use. Radiant_* 11:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too widely in use, but not wisely used. If it was only being added to the Talk pages of questionable articles I would have no objections, but seeing the ugly, tedious mess that it creates on some articles (e.g. Tanga News, which is tagged with both Template:explain-significance and Template:cleanup-context) has convinced me that the Wikipedia is better off without this template. BlankVerse ∅ 12:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    ...or (2nd choice) Rewrite. BlankVerse ∅ 05:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, even useful templates can be misused. And that article really does have serious problems. It doesn't even explain whether "Tanga News" is a radio or a television broadcast, and it has the wrong stub template too. I'd correct and improve the article, but I can't find any information beyond Wikipedia mirrors. It desperately needs verifiability, context, and even a decent substub worth of information. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the template; it gives a article a softer push towards cleanup than Template:Vfd. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; it is a gentle way to encourage editors to improve an article before taking the harsher step of nominating it for Vfd. Russ Blau (talk) 18:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Russ Blau said it best. Thryduulf 20:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, It is a useful template that covers the grey area where an article is not quite worthy of a VFD, but is still of questionable quality in its current state. --Randolph 20:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Widely abused, encourages lazy editors to dodge research and still feel they're contributing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep not every imperfect article needs the banishment of a VfD. Besides, explain-significance is stronger than Template:cleanup-context, but allows more room for discussion. Antares33712 18:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, VfD is very strong and implies a decision has already been made, Template:cleanup-context implies only that the context needs to be explained, not that the article in its entirety may not have significance. --Outlander 19:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I prefer to use this for articles that are short of the line for listing on VfD. Kelly Martin 20:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; allows someone with knowledge to expand article when someone without knowledge might prematurely nominate for Vfd. HollyAm 02:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; I agree that some smaller articles get thrown on Vfd because they were small in creation, but have potential, I think the Vfd makes editors more lazy. At least with this template, it allows the article to be discussed and improved upon, without it being deleted even if it was improved. <>Who?¿? 16:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite; I'd say that the idea of this template is good, but the style doesn't look encyclopedic actually. CrossTimer 15:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, (I'll also go with a rewrite). This is an appropriate tag in many cases, giving a new article's creator a chance to understand that it may go to VfD if he/she doesn't explain why it is worth it to have the article. The cleanup-importance tag is problematic, in that it mixes up the idea of significance with being verifiable. To address Tony Sideaway's concerns about "lazy editors", it's true that there is a lot of "tag slapping" that goes on, but having fewer tags would not encourge contributors to become less lazy. func(talk) 07:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Doesn't this serve just about the same purpose as {{Template:cleanup-importance}}? I just noticed this Tfd when I was carefully reading them trying to determine which one to use in an article... If it is so, than redirect.--Nabla 18:36, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Keep Celestianpower 18:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep As per Nabla, could be a good deal more clarity about where the scope of this begins and ends. Alai 03:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{Template:cleanup-importance}}. -Sean Curtin 23:51, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sub[edit]

Template which reduces number of keystrokes to subscript, mainly used for chemical formulas. Should be substituted, but that defeats the purpose. Thus use copy paste tactics and delete this template.--MarSch 16:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: I didn't know about this template, but now that I do, and assuming it'll survive Tfd, I think I'm going to use it often. -- Ec5618 09:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain but this is something that should always be subst'ed. Radiant_* 09:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but that defeats the purpose of saving keystrokes, so it is never going to happen. --MarSch 11:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. The m:WikiTeX extensions include methods of encoding chemical formulae, so when these are eventually integrated into MediaWiki this template will no longer be necessary: it will then be much easier to find formulae to update if these templates are still in use. --Phil | Talk 13:43, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree keep for now. Trödel|talk 14:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Phil's argument doesn't fly because this is used on many non-chemical pages. All template use imposes a cost, and the "keystroke savings" aren't enough to warrent this. -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Template:Proposed template[edit]

This is based on the fallacy that, in WikiPedia, you need to discuss the appropriateness of templates before using them. Instruction creep. Radiant_* 11:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I agree with User:Eloquence's sentiments ("a measure against template madness"). I am not sure, however, what the best method of dealing with the problem is. At the moment, I doubt that this particular template is a workable method solution to the problem. Is there a way of getting a version of Special:Recentchanges that would only show the pages being created in the Template namespace? BlankVerse ∅ 12:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See [2] for rationale. To quote: "The problem with templates is that it is very easy to create them, and very hard to get rid of them. Virtually all problem templates I've seen have survived being listed on 'Templates for deletion' because, usually, there are multiple passionate fans -- the people who have been using the template and who don't want to modify their existing workflows. This has led to an abundance of pastel colored boxes, as every editor seems to want a template to call their own. I believe we have to treat new templates in the same way we treat new policy proposals. We can keep them around as proposals, but before we actually *use* them, there has to be a consensus to do so. That way, we fix the current asymmetry: We make it harder to *adopt* templates; then it doesn't matter so much that it's hard to *delete* them."
This is the exact opposite of instruction creep -- it is a way to prevent instruction creep. It is a similar mechanism we use for policies. Since templates are not just isolated pages but are applied to other pages, it is not sufficient justification for their usage that they have survived deletion. There needs to be consensus for usage, not just a lack of consensus for deletion -- otherwise you have an asymmetry that leads to instruction creep (as it demonstrably has).--Eloquence* 12:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't think this leads to instruction creep since it's not aimed to be used on every new template, but just on disputed ones. This allows people to discuss the use of a problematic template before either putting it into use or putting it on TfD. There isn't currently a way of getting a version of Special:Recentchanges that would only show the pages being created in the Template namespace, but MediaWiki 1.5 will let you view recent changes by namespace. Keep until there is an alternative way of preventing the use of highly disputed templates. Angela. 13:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I completely fail to see the point of this template. Suppose that we test this template, while it is being proposed. Then it should be tagged by itself, accomplishing... nothing useful that I can see. Perhaps we need to restrict creation of templates to admins? --MarSch 14:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's like saying we should propose proposing policies before proposing policies. It's always been the case in Wikipedia that far-reaching changes require consensus, and a template that is potentially tagged onto hundreds of pages is a far-reaching change just as a policy is. Even within a single page, you're encouraged to seek consensus for a major change. A new template affects many, many pages once it's been put into use. That's why a lack of consensus for deletion is not sufficient justification to use a template, since those using it will virtually always argue against deletion.--Eloquence* 15:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Restricting the authorship of new templates to only admins would go directly opposite of what Wiki stands for. What would be the next restricted function? Allowing free creation may seem chaotic, but all things can be disputed and discussed as they are now. <>Who?¿? 05:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm really not clear on how this is supposed to be used. How would anybody ever see this notice unless the subject template had been used someplace, except that the proposal seems to be that templates are not used until they've been ratified somehow? I thought we were supposed to be bold, but I suppose the problem is with people who are bold and don't like finding out they're wrong (they should be wrong more often, like I am all the time, then they'd get used to it :-). Maybe we could have a Wikipedia:Proposed templates page? --Phil | Talk 16:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, templates can be freely used as they are today. Only if there is a dispute, they will be tagged. I would be open to renaming this to Template:Disputed template.--Eloquence* 17:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ironically, the 'proposed template' is a proposed template. Anyway. The problem with labeling a template as disputed is that it doesn't attract people's attention to the matter (because WP has too many of that kind of mechanism). If you have a problem with the wording of a template, you could be WP:BOLD and reword it, or discuss it on its talk page. If you have a problem with the existence of a template, you can list it for TFD, or you could start a content-RFC on the matter. Radiant_* 08:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This proposal has several problems. It violates the Wikipedia spirit by requiring consensus on something that does not necessarily have wide impact. Editing a template such as Template:Disambig which is already on many articles is certainly a change with wide impact and should be discussed first. Templates which are not yet on any articles have no impact. To give another argument, why should consensus be required for creating a template for use in many articles and not for pasting some message into many articles? If they are denied the ability to create the template, this is what they will do, making cleanup a practical impossibility. Deco 19:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hrm, change to No vote. I was under the impression this was a review process for all new templates, which doesn't appear to be the case. I would still insist however that it be limited to templates which are already on many pages (or someone has expressed intent of putting them on many pages). There's no reason to make a top-level fuss over a template specific to a tiny area; let the Wikiprojects and such deal with it. Deco 19:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 04:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not clear nor easy to find rules and policies on Templates and Categories for new users, and even users who havent' gotten to the point of reading all the policies. Allowing free creation, is the whole purpose of Wiki. This template isn't annoying, and gets to the point. I have seen it used and agree with its policies. I myself have used the template proposals page to recommend changes and new templates, as I believe it says, if there is no opposition, then create the template. Later on, this template could still be used to invite a more informed consentual vote. <>Who?¿? 05:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikicode[edit]

I created and used this template at a time at which I thought that the idea of a standard pseudocode might actually be adopted. Since then it's become clear that the community is vehemently opposed to the idea of a standard pseudocode, particularly this one, and I would very much like to erase every vestige of it from the article namespace, which means mainly every use of this template. Deco 19:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete exactly as Deco said. -- Taku 01:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pseudocode needn't be formalized. --MarSch 11:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mutate. IMHO, standard means wikicode has become a language, and using it is as good/bad/POV/NPOV as using any other one. The 'problem' of having many languages remains. It would be great if the reader could choose to see everything in his favorite language. This would require some tweaking in the engines of wikipedia, I guess. --Comocomocomocomo 11:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A suggestion: Although there is no support for making it a Wikipedia standard, the currently named "Wikicode" is still being used and is useful. I suggest converting all the Wikicode pages into DecoCode pages (so that the documentation is still kept), and then changing this template to read:" The following is written in DecoCode, a pseudocode (DecoCode complete specification)." BlankVerse ∅ 08:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I could see this, although I don't think I'd choose that name (can't think of a better one right now). Would just have to update the information pages to deny any idea that it was a proposed standard. I don't think anyone could object to a completely optional pseudocode (could they?). Deco 21:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
YAPC = Yet Another Pseudo Code. (Although I'd be surprised if that name isn't already being used). NAWC = Not A Wiki Code. BlankVerse ∅ 04:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Iff changed, as per my suggestion above, Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 04:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the wikicode is pretty much similar to C (C++ J++ C# etc) already, why not simply use one of those? Radiant_* 07:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Free software[edit]

Used on very few pages. Seems hardly useful. --MarSch 14:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It does seem useless, as well as being undescriptive. jeffthejiff 21:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This template was probably substituted when it was used. From an internet search, the "free, as in software" (not free, as in beer) phrase looks like an attempt at an internet meme that didn't catch on very well. On the other hand, if you look at some of the older Wikipedia namespace articles, especially on their Talk pages, you will see that there were a few early Wikipedia users who used this phrase fairly often. This template should maybe be moved into some sort of historical template archive. BlankVerse ∅ 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The use and adoption of free software itself is still really growing apace. There are many, many references to free software packages and systems all over the IT articles of Wikipedia (Firefox, Mozilla, Linux etc etc. What is needed is more use of this template to help link these together in readers' minds, rather than delete the template due to it's current lack of use. The wording could also be improved if "(as in speech)" is cumbersome, but there's nothing 'historical' about free software, so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Nigelj 14:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I suggest that you do a Google search on the phrase used in the template "(free (as in speech) software)" and read some of the pages, especially those at the Free Software Foundation. This template has been used mostly on Wikipedia namespace Talk pages to help emphasize the point that the Wikipedia is also free (as in speech). Deleting the "(as in speech)" would remove that point, and the reason for the template. BlankVerse ∅ 05:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with category. Actually, said category already exists, too. Radiant_* 07:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. It seems like the current text is awkward, but the template could be used more on different articles. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 12:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Crowns[edit]

Another huge template that could easily be replaced with a category. - SimonP 20:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is just another bit of SimonP's outrageous vandalistic behaviour against templates (deleting templates against the majority view, starting edit wars on them where he is in a minority of one, deleting templates from pages that they are about, etc) This template links all the key articles in one easy link and contextualises them. This was done because
  1. Users, particularly SimonP, specialise in creating pointless subcategories, that make using the categories a tangled mess, with articles that should be held together separated in frequently spurious sub-categories. [3].
  2. If an attempt was made to divide this template, a small minority of users (actually going by edits over the last few ones, a minority of one, SimonP) go around deleting relevant templates because of his insistence, on the basis of a non-existent rule, that pages should not have a couple of templates. [4]
This one template pulls together all the articles on wikipedia into one, dead easy to follow block, through which at one click of a mouse a user can pick any article, without having to wade through endless categories and subcategories, on the topic. As many of the articles are interlinked in terms of information (for example, differences in design of European versus British crowns, crowns worn and unworn, state, imperial and consort crowns, etc) a user can read about any of the topics, then pick an article on another category in the list, and from the template learn as much of as little of the information as they want, using one template. If multiple templates had been created, SimonP, on past experience, would be the first one to muck it all up by deleting some of the templates from relevant pages on the basis of his own (in most cases he has tried it, minority of one) opinion. FearÉIREANN(talk) 21:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Agree, SimonP has a history of deleting and removing templates against the views of the majority. The Crown templates is large, but it is an excellent tool for navigation throughout Wikipedia's large range of Crown jewels articles. Astrotrain 21:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Per Astrotrain and Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep As above. -- Emsworth 22:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ten times more useful than the ridiculous categorical system that would ensue. smoddy 22:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure that deletion would be the solution, but I would say that something needs to be done about this template as it is large enough to fill my entire screen. And I have a pretty high resolution here. Radiant_* 07:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) Listify per BlankVerse below. Radiant_* 09:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rule of thumb, fellas. If your template is larger than the text, it's too big. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to list (one very long list!). For the average Wikipedia viewer, this template doesn't really help them, where as a good annotated list would. BlankVerse ∅ 08:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tried that. It is unworkable, unusable and ugly. This template is the only workable solution. A long list would make wikipedia look amateurish.
  • No, I think a list is feasible. Simply convert each | to a linebreak, and add a few words to each line for explanation, and add a pic in the upper right corner and it's well on its way to becoming a Featured List. Long lists are better than long templates. Radiant_* 11:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how. I haven't seen a single list on wikipedia that is anything but ugly and amateurish. You don't need any more information than is already in the template. It has three clear section, European and world crowns, British crowns (because of the number of them they are easier to follow and arrange chronologically when separate) and a list of Crown Jewels. Other stuff that was in the draft template, and it was just a draft, as SimonP if he had bothered to check (but then he never does) would have found out, was only there temporarily while the topics were pulled together, then as was as long planned (over a week ago) for yesterday, broken off into separate templates. The three templates are infinitely better, infinitely more easy to follow, and are infinitely more user friendly (and visually attractive) than the bland lists Wikipedia used to have before the template option was created. For from making lists, most people on wikipedia are scrapping lists and deleting them and moving their contents to professionally designed, graphically attractive, templates that look state of the art, not amaterish old fashioned typed lists. FearÉIREANN(talk) 19:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The templates also allow readers new to the subject area to browse articles they may not have otherwise known about. This template is a fine example of this. Astrotrain 20:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Coverting to a list seems like a good compromise. The same navigation aid will exist, it will just be a click away rather than actually present in each article. - SimonP 21:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
They are never a click away, they are invariably a mess and whether you like it users are going to continue to replace them with templates. FearÉIREANN(talk) 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Listify/Categorise – I don't see the need. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep now that it's been improved. violet/riga (t) 12:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to list and category - it's far too large and unwieldy. — Dan | Talk 20:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
It is far less unwieldy than any list would ever be, and far easier to use than a list. Most wikipedia lists are untidy, inaccurate and a complete mess, which why they are all being replaced by templates, and will continue to be deleted and replaced by templates. FearÉIREANN(talk) 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know where that came from, but it is entirely mistaken. See WP:FLC for a number of counterexamples, and information on how to make good lists. Radiant_* 07:03, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, this is also specifically counter to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Another option might be to split the template into three, one on European crowns, one on British ones, and the other on crown jewels. - SimonP 21:48, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is far smaller than any equivalent list would be, and far more usable. -- Arwel 21:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but preferably break up into separate templates for "European and world," "British," and "crown jewels." There should also be lists and categories, I think. john k 22:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is much easier to go through a nice-looking template than to dig though a list in order to find the certain article. While this template is rather large, it looks nice and professional, just what the Wikipedia needs. Bratschetalk random 22:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
In fact the template here was created as a draft to work on a series of articles. As they were completed and could be categorised, separate templates were scheduled to be created for bits of the larger template. (I could had to make the template live from day one, or else many of the articles would have been orphans until the template was put on the system.) Two were created earlier. Crown Jewels as was planned at the weekend being created tonight, with this template here as was the intention when the series was being planned, being about individual crowns, and with links between all the templates in a Crown series. (The British crowns are separate from world crowns for practical reasons.) If SimonP had bothered to check with me first before deciding to put the draft template here I could have told him all that.
As to lists, they are frankly useless in a lot of cases. Many of the articles in the template were already on lists, unwritten for a long long time. After I created the template, people began writing up some of the articles before I had a chance to. (The same thing happened with papal conclaves. They existed, unwritten, in lists. When I created a template for them, people became aware of them and began writing them.) If there is one lesson I have learnt it is that putting things in a list is a recipe for having them exist, unwritten, indefinitely. Put them in a template, and they get written up almost immediately because people can see them in front of them without having to go burrowing around in lists, many of whom are inaccurate, and neither in alphabetical or chronological sequence. From my experience of dealing with lists as against templates, lists are unambiguously inferior in terms of accuracy, layout, availability, visual impact, ease of use, the ability to get articles noticed by users and get them written. FearÉIREANN(talk) 00:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • ah, so what have we decided now? I would say keep the template, because it makes navigation easier. we probably do have to break it up into different sections, such as one only for crowns, the other only for crown jewels (although both mostly come together) but for the sake of simplicity maybe separate. it does not make sense in my opinion to have a separate template for British Crowns, and a separate template for European and World Crowns, since a crown is a crown. regardless where it´s from. Users searching would probably be interested in other ones as well, so keeping them together makes navigational sense, instead of constantly having to look up other categories. Antares911 08:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, most definitely. Agree completely with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 13:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe a little large but a good navigation tool. Rmhermen 14:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or split into three as suggested. James F. (talk) 19:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (or split) Halibutt 15:37, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Actually has been split, as was always planned. (The version SimonP objected to was a draft to allow a set of articles to be created and linked prior to organisation into a number of templates.) It is now divided into four templates: Crowns, Crown Jewels, Parts of crowns and Types of crowns. FearÉIREANN(talk) 04:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I fail to see a reason to get rid of this, as so many have said before. While Categories serve their purpose, so do templates, and to delete this and related ones would be a disservice.--Mitsukai 20:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Split into two seperate templates, and/or convert to category. If converted to category, it might be helpful to do what was done on Category:Manga to organize in a more chronological fashion (subst the template onto the category page). -Frazzydee|✍ 15:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Split into three. Neutralitytalk 20:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading)[edit]

Completely obscurely named template. Usage unclear, but possibly related to the intro templates. --MarSch 11:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-Germany[edit]

The template is severely misleading/plain wrong: normal photographs are copyright until 70 years after the death of the creator (as agreed on the template talk page). There should be some PD-Germany template, but a corrected template would not necessarily apply to the images which currently are tagged with this template. I therefore suggest deleting and starting again rather than rewriting this template. (Note: the template is protected; I hope it was OK to add the tfd tag). Mark1 06:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, delete this, and check and re-tag all images where it is used. German copyright law is complicated: whether something is PD (i.e., copyright expired) depends on a whole lot of factors, including which version(s) of the law was/were in effect while something was still under copyright protection and the question of who (if anybody) holds the copyright on WWII images. And the newest version of the copyright law, intended to make it compliant with EU law, even retroactively puts previously "copyright expired" stuff under copyright protection again because suddenly Spain's longer 80-year term is said to apply. It's a mess. To be on the safe side, just assume there are no German PD images post-1905. Lupo 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Post-1905? 100 years? Why?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm no lawyer. If you can find a later date, be my guest. But to be on the safe side, I'd only assume PD for anything from Germany if I'd tag it with {{PD-old}}. Lupo 10:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I just see that 1905 would apply to the year the author died... Oh well. Lupo 10:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We could definetly use a clear explanation about the copyright of Nazi-made WIII images, I find a lot of arguments 'it was done by Nazis so it is not copyrighted', and I don't know what to respond. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was done by Nazis so it is not copyrighted" is fallacious. As a rule of thumb, everything is copyrighted unless past its expiration date (varies by country, generally 70-100 years), or explicitly released by the author. Radiant_* 10:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This template was TfDd a few weeks ago, see here. There were complications and no consensus was reached. Joe D (t) 12:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can support the opinion that German copyright law is complicated. The template is misleading because most photographs we use here are protected not as simple photographs with 50 years but as works 70 years post mortem auctoris. The law has changed in 1995: As a result of an EU directive lots of photographs in the PD were protected again. I agree with the deletion request. Historiograf --134.130.68.65 20:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template might be changed - but it is the justification of the inclusion of many WWII pictures. Enquiries to the German Government about their copyright status get meaningless responses - indeed it is not clear that any copyright holder exists or whether the archives amount to war booty. (I once tried on a version of Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg which may have been originally published/dropped from an airplane with misleading information on its origin). But given how amny images use this template, it may need to be changed, but should not be removed. User:Henrygb
I see the problem, but even if we do find a summary of German copyright law small enough to fit onto a template, we have no way of knowing whether any particular image is PD under that law without checking the date and origin of each image. Mark1 02:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This template has been reworded to reflect actual German copyright law, so the issues with it are now resolved. Radiant_>|< 11:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Tsar things[edit]

A navigation box for four articles whose only connection is that they are named Tsar Foo. BlankVerse ∅ 17:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 17:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain until creator votes to keep, as per my policy proposal. --MarSch 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, agree with Radiant's last comment. --MarSch 00:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete john k 18:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep what's the harm? I never heard about Tsar Bomba, but I found it through Tsar Bell so it was useful for me.  Grue  18:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 20:52, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we already have an index and it's Special:Allpages. Radiant_>|< 09:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
    It is not true that only connection between the articles is that they are named Tsar Foo (for example, if otherwise, Tsar Lazar would be included as well). The articles are connected culturaly: there exists a tradition in Russia of making huge things just for the sake of it and for the show, and oftenly they are named Tsar Foo; for example, I can predict that if Russia would have to make a rocket launcher several times larger than any existing, it would likely be named Tsar Rocket and so on. For reader of an article about one such thing, it is interesting and may be important to know that there are other such things. So, maybe the template could be deleted if there would be a category which would hold these four objects together (what could be a name for such a category I leave to your imagination); but until that is the case, keep. Nikola 05:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, that is a decent explanation; but it means at the very least that the template is misnamed. Since I can't think of a feasible name for a category or a template here, and it's only a small number of things to being with, I'd suggest adding a small paragraph to each explaining what you just said here, and having it link to the related 'things'. Radiant_>|< 07:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, small and useful. So what if a template doesn't have the perfect name. Kappa 14:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ℬastique▼talk 02:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the template is amusing, but that's no reason to keep it. Use a category for "big things" (which must exist, but I can't find it), and then all the "Tsar things" will show up together in alphabetical order there. Possible additions: Goliath frog, Category:People with giantism, RMS Titanic, Spruce Goose, Claes Oldenburg. I'm not really joking here... --Quuxplusone 17:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Categorify. Dragons flight 06:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename, possibly categorify. 'Things' is to genereal and 'primitive' for Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:User-c[edit]

Compact form of Template:User. Barely used, and I feel a bit too redundant. -- Netoholic @ 15:42, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Keep What is the harm? I just created this last week to have a compact version of Template:User where it is specificly intended to be compact by the author. It doesn't effect use of Template:User. It is barely used because it is new. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Barely used because it was recently created (6 Jun 2005). Since I had been thinking of creating a similar template, I'm glad to know one already exists. BlankVerse ∅ 16:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good thinking. If certain people will use this, it should decrease the size of their signatures significantly. The design could use a tweak though. -- Ec5618 17:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- if we have {{User}} there's no harm in having this also. Smaller is sometimes better. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A practical template that's likely to be utilized by many editors. —Lifeisunfair 02:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can understand that people want to reduce size of {{user}}, but then the practical process is to be bold and edit it, not fork off a copy. Radiant_>|< 07:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of this template is to offer an alternative — not to replace the original. It's a matter of personal preference; some users will continue to opt for the larger template, while others will select (or switch to) this one. Why force everyone to use one or the other (or neither)? —Lifeisunfair 09:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because having several templates for the same purpose is redundant, potentially confusing, and makes it harder to locate items using one of them. Radiant_>|< 11:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
The two templates do not serve precisely the same purpose; they generate differently sized signatures. When dealing with something as highly stylized as this, it's unreasonable to apply the same strict standards that (rightfully) govern article templates (which, in stark contrast to signatures, require uniformity). —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you want to customize your signature, use the 'preferences' option to do so. You aren't actually supposed to use templates for signatures in the first place (it's a server load issue). Radiant_>|< 13:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
If that's the case, the original User template should be deleted too. Otherwise, both templates should remain. —Lifeisunfair 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy agree with Radiant. Do not see the point of having a redundant template, eventually we would have more than 2 or 3 and no one would really know the differences in either. I see there was a proposal on Template talk:User, and there was opposition. Userfy the template for self and shared use. At some point in the future, maybe edit the original. <>Who?¿? 08:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It appears that the opposition was to the proposal that the existing template be shortened — not to the idea of creating a separate template. This is the very course of action suggested by Radiant (with whom you expressed agreement). —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, if consensus opposes some kind of change, it then follows that one should stick with the status quo - not that one should fork off a private copy. This is generally frowned upon. Radiant_>|< 11:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I wouldn't call two users a "consensus." Secondly, these individuals didn't express opposition to the creation of a compact variation of the template; they merely didn't wish to lose the existing version.
As an analogy, suppose that there's opposition to the idea of covering "topic X" in an article about "topic Y." Does this preclude the creation of a new "topic X" article? —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If there is no consensus opposed to reducing the template, by all means discuss it further! Call for a vote on the layout of the template, if you must. Radiant_>|< 13:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
There probably is a consensus opposed to reducing the template. That isn't what's being sought. —Lifeisunfair 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And as to the latter, if there is (for instance) opposition in how an article on Jesus portrays him, it is bad form (and deletable) to fork off a new article that portrays him the way you want it. Radiant_>|< 13:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
My analogy (which I was applying very loosely) wasn't perfect, but yours is considerably less valid. Obviously, the type of editorial concern that you describe doesn't remotely pertain to these templates. The creation of the compact template is more analogous to the establishment of a separate Mary article, instead of revamping the Jesus article to include numerous sections about the life of Mary. Again, this is a very loose analogy, because we're dealing with a disparate situation. —Lifeisunfair 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously there is a demand. Kappa 14:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Don't use for sigs, little other use and unused.--MarSch 15:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I didn't create it with the intention of using it in sigs. Its primary use is to refer to users in context, just like Template:User. In particular this is useful when replying to unsigned messages, or referring to anonymous IP accounts. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good idea. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not a consistency issue, because the template in question isn't for use in articles. Occasional brevity is nice. --Quuxplusone 17:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:SCD[edit]

Basically, it's a disclaimer stating that some items in the category it's on may in fact be miscategorized. That sounds trivially obvious for just about any category; and looking at whatlinkshere I'd say most of the ~25 cats it's on should be renamed which would fix the problem. Radiant_>|< 14:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • del, this vote may not reclassified --MarSch 16:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I don't really like the wording, I know what the template is trying to do. There have been a number of HUGE edit wars over how some people have been classified (such as, is Grace Kelly a Gay icon), so this template is an attempt to defuse those arguments. BlankVerse ∅ 18:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - major issues have been solved by this template (among others: continuous renaming votes for ~25 categories relating to people - as if renaming were the "simple" solution for those categories). See wikipedia:categorization of people (and: wikipedia talk:categorization of people) for how to use the template & apply it correctly. Further: wikipedia:categorization of people went through ample procedure before acceptance, and the "SCD" template is part of that guideline, so it is a bit contradictory to cripple the guideline by removing the template. --Francis Schonken 21:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, in that case it should be edited to resemble {{disputed}}, and state something like "the listing of some topics in this category is disputed". But actually, the dispute is in the articles, not the category, so I'd still prefer discussing it there. I see no real consensus on the talk page you mention; this was just inserted by a few people, but it's hardly official. Disputes should be resolved, not covered under a disclaimer. Radiant_>|< 09:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Dear Radiant, a little less instruction creep would be welcome: not all templates that make wikipedia run smoothly should resemble one another. The is disputed formulation was tried for the SCD template when we worked with several people on wikipedia:categorization of people, and was rejected for reasons still available FYR at wikipedia talk:categorization of people (shortcut to the relevant section: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#The_.22Subjective_Category_Disclaimer.22). I don't think I need to discuss this with someone who didn't read that guideline and the adjoining talk page. Feel free to take part in the discussion on that talk page if you have new ideas that would be able to solve issues even smoother. My only problem with the SCD template presently is that its name is maybe not completely in line with its present content. But I nearly didn't dare to speak my opinion on that matter, for fear this would lead to more complication instead of simplification (and because I don't have a better name ready). --Francis Schonken 08:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That was not intended as instruction creep, but simply based on the fact that the template's wording does not at all make it clear what it's for. Unless everyone who sees the template reads the discussion you've mentioned first, they are not necessarily going to understand it. Radiant_>|< 09:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
          • Presumably none of the templates labeled on this page as "instruction creep" were intended as instruction creep by the original author(s). So don't take it too bad if I call uniformising all templates to about the same template as the real creepy instruction creep. Further the template, which I reprint here with your permission, has only one link, which is to the categorization of people guideline, which guideline states in the intro that the SCD template is explained in short on the same page and in detail on the talk page (with clickable link to that talk page). So are you really serious that you listed that template on TfD before clicking that link? Or without reading template talk:SCD, which only contains a link to that same talk page? If I wouldn't understand what the template was about that would be the first things I'd do, as would, I suppose, most wikipedians. So I don't think you're really making a point here. --Francis Schonken 19:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<h2>''Disclaimer''</h2>

This category may label persons incorrectly. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people for advice on how to apply categorization to articles relating to people.

      • By analogy, your template is simply stating "This template is confusing. Click here to find out what it actually means." That is not useful. A template should be worded so that it's obvious what it means. Of course I read the discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that the template itself is not in good shape. Radiant_>|< 22:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not my template. Your comparison/analogy is bogus. "This category may label persons incorrectly." is as obvious to me as "The template below has been proposed for deletion." I said if (and only if) some wikipedian gets confused nonetheless (as apparently you did) he knows were to find the answers: Categorization of people in the first instance, TfD in the second. One of the chief intentions of the SCD template was to draw attention to the categorization of people guideline, so if the first sentence works intriguing in that sense, that's fine by me. If it is your opinion that SCD is not "in good shape" than (again) please raise the issue at wikipedia talk:categorization of people and/or template talk:SCD or wherever you think fit, but then we're no longer in a deletion scheme, and it should be only fair you withdrew SCD from this deletion list (well, I don't want to push that, voting time is nearly over). Recurring to one of your above comments: no, the SCD template was created as part of a strategy to solve endless CfD votes, not about individual category assignations to wikipedia articles. Some categories became acceptable because of the disclaimer. Note that wikipedia uses several disclaimers - for example, articles describing diseases are only possible because there is a medical disclaimer, so, no, your generalisation that disclaimers are used "to cover up disputes" is not true in general, neither is it applicable to this particular disclaimer. Before attempting to rewrite SCD I would however advise to have a look at these pages, which could give some insights in when SCD proved/proves to be useful (and why):
  1. category:atheists (after the category definition had been reworked, SCD was redundant)
  2. category:terrorists and category talk:terrorists (CfD listings continued, after the category definition had been cleaned up - I'd like to remove the ugly preliminary note of that category, and only keep SCD or something similar)
  3. etc... see what's going on in people (sub)categories --Francis Schonken 00:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Personal[edit]

Our policy against personal attacks applies to all of Wikipedia, not just to a few talk pages with this template. →Raul654 01:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

In light of this objection, User:Lifeisunfair proposed a change, and I implemented it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Raul654 01:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This template is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal attacks on controversial pages. --cesarb 01:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - considering I have only just created it and we are still discussing it on WP:BP, WP:AN and WP:NPA, I'm a bit suprised that this is up for deletion. I could move it to a subpage of WP:NPA for the time being, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Further: We don't currently have a blocking rule that immediately blocks personal attacks, nor should we. People must get a warning. However, on certain controversial articles, such as Jihad, there are editors who create sock puppets and edit anonymously - all done on purpose. They target these articles and therefore I feel that a specific warning message (this template) should be added to the article, noting that we won't accept personal attacks in the article. This would be the warning that editors are given, and will mean that they have no excuse for making personal attacks - excuses like "But you never warned me!". - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it could help to calm down some of the more volatile talk pages. On the Islam-related ones recently, there has been some really unpleasant stuff, more so than usual. Anything that might help is welcome, in my view. Admins could be advised to use it sparingly. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or userfy if the proposal goes nowhere. This link is Broken 03:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but revise to something along the lines of this. —Lifeisunfair 03:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The person posting the template has no right to threaten someone with being blocked. People know the policy and administrators know when to block. Superm401 | Talk 03:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. However, this is part of the policy change. We could make it clear in the Wikipedia:No personal attack policy that only admins can place this on the article's talk page when a clear majority of admins agree that this is the only way of proceding forward with discussion. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Explicit reminder, especially to newcomers, to cool their jets when they head straight to topics that interest/obsess them particularly. --Calton | Talk 04:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though I would like to see the template in a smaller form. -- Ec5618 11:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't really see the point of it, but at any rate it should be reworded as it's far too long. It has been decided that this message shall serve as irrefutable notification is too bureaucratese. Radiant_>|< 12:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's only fair to point out that I'm responsible for the sentence in question, which is among the additions that I proposed (and Ta bu shi da yu promptly implemented) in response to this discussion. The previous version was significantly shorter, but it generated the complaint of ambiguity on which Raul654 based his deletion proposal. —Lifeisunfair 13:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • While I didn't actually make that up, I agree with that sentence you quote because this is the purpose of this template: to give fair warning to all anonymous editors and sock puppets (!) that they will be blocked for personal attacks. Ever tried to warn suspected sock puppets? They always say they aren't sock puppets, even if they are. With a global warning on the contentious talk page, no warning needs to be given to them explicitly. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but copy-edit. There are too many Talk pages on the Wikipedia that need this reminder to be civil. Many of the articles where there is a dispute over the title of the article, for example. BlankVerse ∅ 12:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Also, this is a policy decision, so it really shouldn't be handled here at TFD. User:Ta bu shi da yu should create a Wikipedia policy proposal for using the template, or find some other Wikipedia forum for discussing the use of the template and then should see if there is any consensus for its use. BlankVerse ∅ 11:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it still suggests personal attacks are more acceptable some places than others. Support the underlying move towards blocking for personal attacks, however. Snowspinner 15:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • With all due respect to Snowspinner, I disagree. This template doesn't do anything of the sort, especially with the bolded warning on the bottom. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a "symptom" template, not a "disease" template. :) When would it be appropriate to use this template instead of one of the more focused Template:POV, Template:TitleDisputed, or just a simple comment "No personal attacks, please"? Ditto Snowspinner's and Superm401's comments too: this template feels like a weapon. And if only admins can use it... can't admins protect pages and/or archive or delete insults anyway? --Quuxplusone 17:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I'm afraid that NPOV and TitleDisputed templates would not be sufficient. Neither of those talk about personal attacks, and neither of those give a specific warning that you could be blocked on site for making personal attacks. As for using it as a weapon: that is something that the policy changes will address and prevent. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't see any harm, and if it reminds just one User not to engage in personal attacks, it will have come out on the credit side. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It wastes a lot of space on the page, and I don't think it's going to deter anyone from personal attacks. And I don't like the language it uses. Maybe it's not difficult for me to write neutrally about this topic? What does "irrefutable notification" mean? Does it give carte blanche for an administrator to block any user whose tone he doesn't like? What's the difference in how an article is handled when it does or doesn't have this template on it? Don't the statements in this template apply to EVERY article? If personal attacks are "prohibited throughout the Wikipedia site," then why post a warning like this in the first place? - Brian Kendig 18:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you read Ta bu shi da yu's remarks? This template is for use in conjunction with a newly proposed policy (which has not yet taken effect). In my opinion, this deletion vote is premature. —Lifeisunfair 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It hardly wastes any space on the top of the page, so can't agree with that argument. As for whether it is not difficult to write neutrally about a particular topic: well, all I can say is that the Personal template is not going to be used on those articles! However, if you are implying that it is easy to write neutrally about any topic, I would love to see you editing Jihad, because that page sure as heck needs all the help it can get! I'd like to note, for the record, that I wish I didn't have to create this template and that we could all just get along, but after being on Wikipedia for quite some time now and having viewed some tinderbox articles, I know that is just not the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll change my vote to Keep, now that the vague language has been excised. I believe the template has become more clear about its purpose: to remind users they should always be civil, but to specifically tell them that they'll be blocked if they prolong personal conflicts on a talk page which bears this template. I just finished some edits to bring it more in line with this purpose. - Brian Kendig 04:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but clarify policy. -- nyenyec ☎ 01:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a very bad idea  Grue  09:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Modify. I don't know how, but I also think it seems a little like personal attacks are more allowed on some pages than others. It is a good idea though, reminding some wikipedians about the Rule of No Personal Attacks. // Mathew 10:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though this should be hard-limited to admins, or it'll finish up all over the place in 'revenge templating' wars. I don't think there is too much of a problem with it not being intended for article pages since these can be reverted with fewer implications than talk pages, and we already have the various disputed, npov etc tags.-Splash 16:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ship table and associated sub-tables[edit]

This ship infobox is a cute piece of engineering. Through the use of templates, meta-templates, and sub-templates, it is able to show only those parts of the infobox that are appropriate for the ship in question. For example, if "range" is an inapplicable parameter for describing the ship, the "range" infobox entry won't be there. Unfortunately, the infobox is also an abomination on the face of the Earth. By moving content out of article space and into templates such as Template:Ship displacement box Pyro class ammunition ship, it makes it much harder to change the infobox. Adding information is also harder: I tried adding information to the infobox for USS Nitro (AE-2), but could only produce redlinks such as Template:Ship speed box 16 knots. It also runs afoul of some of the problems mentioned at Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. --Carnildo 21:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I corrected the faults with templates that were raised on my user page almost a month ago. Carnildo complained that some of the templates I used were not for boilerplate information shared between articles, but for content from a single article. In a number of cases that charge was true. I therefore altered the articles in question and deleted the templates concerned. All of the templates associated with that ship table template are now either currently referenced in multiple articles as boilerplate text, or potentially will be when articles for the rest of the ship class concerned are written. There is a full set of instructions on how to use the templates at the Wikiproject for ships. I had them in prototype form for over a month before deploying them precisely so that concerns over what rows should be in the table could be addressed. The problems in avoiding the use of meta-templates are a concern, but I would say that they are not a big enough concern to delete all the tables.

    In summary, the templates are used for boilerplate text that is shared between articles. The templates for the table markup itself are an attempt to bring uniformity, flexibility and ease of maintenance to the arena of ship tables. The templates for the content are meant to be shared between multiple members of the same class of warship, reducing maintenance for those articles and increasing content richness. David Newton 02:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I will admit that editing the information in for this templete is at times develishly hard to do, if it isn't outright impossible; however, the ship table is by far the most asthetically pleasing table I have seen, and it does present a wealth of usefull material related to the ships. Deleting this templete and its associated templetes would be a very bad move. Besides, I don't see that you have presented any alternatives to this so-called "...abomination on the face of the Earth"; If you are going to demand it be deleted you should also propose an alternative to the current version. TomStar81 03:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If I could have made the markup and syntax more simple and retained the functionality I would have done. One thing that does seem to confuse some people is the name of the variables. That may well need looking at to improve the functionality. The complicated bit with this table is the optional rows. I'm trying to get a way of doing it that both allows specification of optional rows and keeps the rows in the same order for consistency. With this set of templates we're bumping right up against the limits of the functionality of the Wikipedia templates system. If the extended template syntax could be implemented, allowing optional rows to be specified for templates, then it would make things a good deal easier. David Newton 12:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ouch!. Subst, delete, and restart from scratch. Try to avoid meta-templates, obfuscative subtemplating, and templates masquerading as article text. Three strikes, you're out. Radiant_>|< 09:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Which rows are optional? --MarSch 12:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The optional rows for the table are as follows:
  1. Purchased
  2. Commissioned
  3. Decommissioned
  4. In service
  5. Out of service
  6. Captured
  7. Struck
  8. Reinstated
  9. Homeport
  10. Range
  11. Endurance
  12. Test depth
  13. Capacity
  14. Time to activate
  15. Sensors
  16. Electronic warfare and decoys (with a variable EW)
  17. Armament
  18. Armour
  19. Aircraft

David Newton 19:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Template:ChattFM[edit]

A template for adding Category:Chattanooga FM stations to articles. Used on exactly one article. It should be subst:'d and deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Subst: and delete BlankVerse ∅ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep the now completed version (with the assumption that User:Radiojon will be writing LOTS of articles to "fix" all of those red links in the template). BlankVerse ∅ 12:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Subst & delete. Obviously unnecessary. —Lifeisunfair 12:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely do not delete!. For the impatient, I have created the template that this was intended to be.   –radiojon 06:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intended as a navigational template across a large number of pages that Radiojon is also apparently working on producing. Since it uses radio station frequencies (a very sensible organization), it is functionally distinct from the Category despite containing all the same elements. All in all, a useful navigational template, or at least it will be useful when the articles are created. Dragons flight 07:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, what makes this template "obviously unnecessary"? Phoenix2 23:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I hope that bug 491: category piping will soon get fixed, which will make such double work unnecessary. — Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • I think the names of those radio stations should be used instead of their frequencies. --MarSch 12:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Frequencies are not useful handles for radiostations. del --MarSch 17:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify since there is no 'linear series' to them - one does not follow or precede another, but they do have an overarching thing in common. -Splash 17:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Slashdot[edit]

Since it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical, and since the Category:Slashdot already exists, delete this. Radiant_>|< 12:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This makes navigating easier for the user, whom is most likely interested in the topic anyway --Hoovernj 04:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not only can this be done better with categories, it should be done by prose in the slashdot article. Joe D (t) 12:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    There are 18 articles in Category:Slashdot and it's subcategory, and it makes sense to highlight the most important. As for describing them in the Slashdot article itself, what about the nine other places in article space where it is used as a navigational aid? Dragons flight 19:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless it changed in the last few minutes, then it doesn't look alphabetical, and navigation templates are naturally less all encompassing than categories. Could do with a little cleanup though. Dragons flight 13:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most people who will be looking at one of the Slashdot articles will probably want to look at some of the other articles. This navigation box makes that convenient. BlankVerse ∅ 13:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful navigation box. --cesarb 16:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is the point of having categories if there are going to be templates everywhere? - SimonP 17:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Convinced by Joe D's argument Mark Lewis 18:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's been reworked. violet/riga (t) 19:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful navigation box. Nickptar 20:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Convenient aid.--Fangz 17:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, i use these all the time, and i never use categories. "omg 32 kb of wasted space" - dumb. SECProto 20:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I believe this is useful (though a category exists for slashdot) --Oblivious 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful navigational aid. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful, and isn't hurting anyone. LeoDV 10:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notorious site, with subcultures, Geek concentration and your spiritual synthesis, it's one of the most Internet culture representative in these days. --Mateusc 17:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep why delete it? it does it's job, and does it well.
  • Keep Now that it's been reworked. I really wish we could present categories in such a nice structured way some day. Until then, keep. — Sebastian (talk) 02:59, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep Cburnett 06:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is no template (filled with categorizable info), it's a navigational aid. Use categories for such navigational purposes, please. Peter S. 00:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep St33lBird the template contains links to specific items relevant to the article rather than assigning categories to the article. very useful -- perhaps this approach should be considered for future articles.

St33lbird 00:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Exploding animals[edit]

Redundant with Category:Exploding animals, and it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical. Radiant_>|< 09:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Done, but I'm voting delete. This template is redundant. Gemberling 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would have voted delete for almost any other template like this, but the topic of exploding animals is so absurd and unusual, it warrants having a template to give it that much extra attention. It has been a benefit to me in the past, and I'm sure that it would be a benefit to other readers. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Frazzydee. --Randy 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep quite a good template, unusual and interesting. Good to display: a category doesn't display the different articles on the exploding animal pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep...it's just too hilarious. --MikeJ9919 07:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Human interest" to its extreme. Shem(talk) 09:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - kaboom! Alphax τεχ 12:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; it doesn't take up much room (unlike some other templates I've seen) and it's both funny and informative. A2Kafir 13:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although it is really funny, we only need the category. (The only advantage of the template is the thumbnail of the exploding whale, which is hard to see anyway.) Wikiacc (talk) 18:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It nice to see a little levity in the Wikipedia that is also informative and not an immediate candidate for BJAODN. BlankVerse ∅ 18:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it certainly is useful to list the anim,als that can explode, maybe spontaneouisly, which is potentially useful--Sstabeler 18:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That's what categories are for. --Conti|✉ 22:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for easy navigation. What's next deleting templates that interlink Sherlock Holmes novels or amino acids? - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — it's really interesting to browse through all such articles. — Pt (T) 17:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The reasons keepers give are reasons to spice up category display in general, not a reason to duplicate categories with templates. (If it were structured like #Template:Slashdot I'd vote "keep".) — Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • delete (is only stupid)--MartinS 10:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete AN 12:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not categorify. This is amusing rubbish: any animal can be made to explode with application of appropriate tools, so this would either have to be on every animal article or be a cateogory with every animal in...which is already done!-Splash 17:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
pure nonsense (just to be polite) - delete -Wittkowsky 21:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely keep. Lighten up and live a little. It's a great way to navigate this small set of whimsical yet true articles. THIS is the sort of thing why Wikipedia will always be better than other online encyclopedias. --Unfocused 21:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but make a little less obtrusive (unless that is caused by the TfD tag). - Omegatron 21:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless fun. - Mustafaa 23:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, very informative =)--Zxcvbnm 16:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, helped me in the past. Categories just don't work as well. I'm not saying that we shouldn't rethink/improve the category system but for now this template is helpful. Put me down as an immediatist in this case. - Haukurth 17:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I found it a useful template. Falphin 17:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Oh PLEEEEEEZE, Maryℬastique▼talk 00:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's useful, and nice. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I really like this template: it's amusing and actually a useful navigational tool (I have honestly used it myself in the past before I became an editor). What do we stand to gain from deleting it? There's nothing wrong with a little humour :-) Will => talk 18:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in honour of TBSDY and in recognition of the fact that Wikipedia should be funny sometimes. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cfru[edit]

Fork of Template:Cfr with an extra parameter used for 'umbrella' nominations. Not actually in use. Radiant_>|< 09:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Kbdank71 16:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is useful for umbrella nominations, but it's not advertised on WP:CFD. Not many people actually knows they should use this template for such nominations. — Instantnood 15:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: What's an "[[Wikipedia:umbrella nomination"? — Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • keep, it gives people the opportunity to save other people some time searching for the nomination. No harm done if not always used, thus no instruction creep. --MarSch 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and advertise. Using this template would have saved me (and others) time when adding such umbrella nominations. Here is a perfect example of the latest one. There sometimes is a need to nominate a group of similiar categories all at once, rather than having several Cfd's on the same topic. Otherwise you have to manually edit the subst:Cfd to point to the appropriate area on Cfd. <>Who?¿? 17:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is in use. Perhaps it should be more widely advertized. Kaldari 17:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler-other[edit]

Please, just one {{Spoiler}} template to rule them all. -- Netoholic @ 20:58, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

  • Keep, obviously. Did you continue reading the Whedon-spoiler discussion after casting your vote? The {{Spoiler}} template doesn't allow users to warn readers that an article contains spoilers pertaining to a subject other than the titular one. Furthermore, the spoiler warning page (linked to from the {{Spoiler}} template) has contained the following instruction since July 7, 2004: "If this general purpose template is not suitable for the particular article you are working on, feel free to custom-design your own warning, but please link back to this page." —Lifeisunfair 21:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia already has a Content disclaimer, and we're already doing readers a favor giving a "heads-up" that a page has spoilers. I doubt seriously that anyone reading a page with spoilers expects the spoilers to relate only to the page title. Look, if you want to re-write Template:Spoiler, then please propose a wording which covers your concerns, but I think the current text of it is sufficient. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it also is an Internet site. As such, it's our responsibility to maintain the level of etiquette to which Internet users are accustomed. I strongly disagree with your assessment of spoiler warning interpretation; lacking notice to the contrary, I would expect a spoiler warning to apply strictly to the article's titular subject. And as I mentioned earlier, the spoiler warning page has encouraged the creation of custom spoiler warnings for almost a year. If you disagree with this guideline, I suggest that you propose a wording that covers your concerns. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I am not saying we should abandon spoiler warnings. I am saying that we only need one, generic warning to do that task. We don't need anything more complex than the existing warning notice. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
          • I disagree. The situation is not infrequently more complex than the basic Template:spoiler deals well with. I agreee that endless specailized spoilers are a mistake, but we now have three templates that between them seem to handle all the reasonable cases. Surely there must be clear usage instructions at each that describe how to use them, and when to use one of the others instead. Surely there eill ocasional be confusion, but that applies to so much of wikipedia. What is so horrid to you about havign these threee templates -- not an endless number, but three instead of only one? Where is it written in stoen that one, and that one the most basic possible, is all we "need". DES 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I just read through the Whedon-spoiler discussion referenced, and I have to agree, this one looks potentially useful. --JohnDBuell | Talk 22:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on the discussion below, this looks suitably flexible and useful. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Where an article includes spoilers for things not obvious from its title, this is a highly desireable way to let people know about it. Indeed, if you must have only one template, use only this one, so modified that if the "other" parameter is left blank, it reverts to something like the current "spoiler" template. DES 22:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Great, so propose this change on Template talk:Spoiler. I don't really care, so long as we only have one spoiler template, because Wikipedia's "responsibilities" with regards to spoiler warnings just isn't worth the effort. -- Netoholic @ 00:16, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
      • I am fine with two templates, and the work to convert the existing uses of the existing spoiler template is, i suspect, non-trivial. if you think it is so vital that there be only one template, propose the change yourself, and do the work of conversion. No one else here seems to think that having two templates is so horrid. It would be a good idea if each template's documentation referenced the other, and explained how and when to use it, and if this template survives this process I might well do that. DES 00:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Both templates (and another that I created, which I assume will be nominated for deletion soon) link to the spoiler warning page, which provides the type of instructions that you describe. The third template — {{Spoiler-about}} — is an expanded version of {{Spoiler}} (particularly useful in an article or section that contains spoilers on a single topic that isn't clear from the title). If any template were to replace (rather than supplement) the current {{Spoiler}} template, it should be that one. (While its additional information usually isn't needed, it never is inappropriate, and could be rendered optional by a more knowledgeable template author than I.) But would this be worth the effort? Perhaps, but a trio of templates (two of which actively discourage the creation of further templates) seems entirely manageable to me. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Assuming that each serves a unique purpose, what harm results from having more than one spoiler template? No one is asking you to expend any "effort." —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm not sure I'm big on having spoiler tags, but if we're going to have those this is a logical extension. --W(t) 01:20, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provides context that Template:Spoiler is incapable of handling. -Sean Curtin 04:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sean's reasoning. The regular spoiler template can't handle it if the argument for the other subject isn't used. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this one obviates the need for specific spoilers such as tolkien-spoiler and buffy-spoiler. Radiant_>|< 10:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, I didn't even know this template existed when I was talking about the whedon-spoiler template, or else I would've referred to it :$. The same points that were brought up in the discussion for whedon-spoiler apply here. This template is a version that will work for many different spoilers rather than only whedon productions, and also allows people to be much more specific. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that this was actually created in response to the debate over the whedon-spoiler template; at any rate it is clear from the history that it was creatd after that debate had started. DES 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I created the template directly in response to the {{whedon-spoiler}} discussion (based upon another user's suggestion). —Lifeisunfair 14:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - {{Spoiler}} and {{Spoiler-about}} are all we need. - Omegatron 18:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Whedon-spoiler discussion. Shem(talk) 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A useful template. - Sikon 08:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • del, unused and I see no use for this template that spoiler-about cannot handle --MarSch 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your latter point is a valid opinion, but the template is unused because it was created less than two days ago (and proposed for deletion within hours). Also, Netoholic (the deletion proponent) has removed its description (and that of {{spoiler-about}}) from the spoiler warning explanation page. —Lifeisunfair 14:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am aware that this template is very young, but thanks for pointing it out. --MarSch 14:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since it will help avoid the creation of spoiler-everyfilm. -Splash 17:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it needs to be slightly reworked. The PAGENAME function should be replaced by a simple user input -- a spoiler warning that said "In addition to Hermoine Granger ..." or "In addition to Horses of Middle-earth" would just look silly. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and replace uses with SPOILER-ABOUT

Template:Spoiler-about[edit]

I understand the need of Template:Spoiler-other below, but this one claims that "the article contains spoilers about its subject" and is therefore redundant with the more vanilla Template:Spoiler. Radiant_>|< 08:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Radiant. This template is redundant. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Provisional delete, Template:Spoiler-about and Template:Spoiler-other are redundant with each other. We don't need two templates to describe what spoilers it contains. At the moment I think Spoiler-other is more useful. - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to reassess the template. I personally favor retaining both {{Spoiler-about}} and {{Spoiler-other}}, but if we were to keep only one, it should be {{Spoiler-about}}. It contains less information (rendering it less useful in situations to which {{Spoiler-other}} applies), but the information that it does contain is applicable. Conversely, {{Spoiler-other}} contains additional information that renders it inapplicable to any situation in which the spoiler warning doesn't pertain to the article's title (as demonstrated below). —Lifeisunfair 12:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not necessary. Redirect back to template:spoiler. Dunc|☺ 09:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the template, because it does not claim that "the article contains spoilers about its subject" (unless someone decides to utilize it in this manner, which isn't its intended application). The "subject" to which I refer in my example is that of the spoiler, not the title of the article. This is potentially useful in two types of situation that I've observed.
1. An article or section can contain spoilers pertaining to a topic that while not unrelated, is not explicitly contained within the title. For example, an actor's/director's/producer's article (or a section thereof) might mention key plot details of one or more theatrical/television productions. The message might read:
Spoiler warning: This article or section contains plot/ending details of "Movie X" and "Movie Y."
2. A particular section can contain spoilers for a specific area of the article's subject, such as a television season. (This is especially significant when a current television series is further along in some countries than in others.) The message might read:
Spoiler warning: This article or section contains plot/ending details of season 3.
And once again, the spoiler warning page has encouraged the creation of custom spoiler warnings for almost a year. If you disagree with this guideline, you should propose its abolishment (as opposed to the abolishment of templates created in accordance with said guideline). And of course, in authoring this template and {{Spoiler-other}}, I seek to reduce or eliminate the need for further custom spoiler templates. —Lifeisunfair 09:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, in that case it's redundant with the more generic Template:Spoiler-about. I wholeheartedly agree with reducing the need for custom spoiler templates, and like I said I find spoiler-about very useful, but I can't see this one as anything else than redundant. As a side point, WP:SW claims you should design your own If these general purpose templates are not suitable for the particular article you are working on. And what we're debating here is precisely that issue - whether or not the general templates are suitable. Radiant_>|< 10:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I obviously disagree with your assessment. The {{Spoiler-other}} template (which I assume you meant to reference above) is far less generic than {{Spoiler-about}}, because the former specifies that the article contains spoilers pertaining to its title. Applying {{Spoiler-other}} to the two examples cited above, you'll see that it's entirely inappropriate:
Spoiler warning: In addition to George Lucas, this article contains plot/ending details of THX 1138 and American Graffiti.
The article doesn't contain spoilers about George Lucas.
Spoiler warning: In addition to The X-Files, this article contains plot/ending details of season 3.
Season 3 is part of the series, not an additional entity.
Do you see how the templates have disparate applications? —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, unless somebody's changed the template, it doesn't say that it contains spoilers about its subject, but rather has a parameter where you can put what the spoiler is. I can definitely see this being useful in some places. For example, in an article about a director, I may want to talk about one of his movies. This template would allow me to specify which movie I'm going to discuss, while at the same time making it clear that I'm not going to "spoil" something about the director himself (okay, not a good example, but I'm sure you get my point). This template allows people to be more specific, and is definitely not redundant. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You described my intended application perfectly. With no offense intended toward anyone, it's only fair to analyze a template's basic structure before proposing its deletion. With an accurate understanding of {{Spoiler-about}}, Radiant might still have nominated it for deletion, but wouldn't have misled others into believing that it was set up in a totally different format than it actually is. (I would appreciate if you'd strike your original description, Radiant.) —Lifeisunfair 12:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason to not clearup this confusion and merge the lot of them into a single template This article contains plot details or ending details about //fill in the blank//? People are likely to use the wrong template if there are three or more. {{sofixit}}. Radiant_>|< 11:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is a reason to have separate templates: they serve different purposes. There isn't always a need to specify the nature of a spoiler, but sometimes there is. Why are you so eager to lump these situations together? I believe that the spoiler template selection instructions (which are linked from the three spoiler templates in question) are clear, but you're welcome to improve them. We shouldn't weaken the encyclopedia's content simply to make things marginally easier for a few people. —Lifeisunfair 12:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If we had to retain only one of the three spoiler templates, it should probably be this one, or a slight modification of this one (to make the argument optional). However i think that retaining all three (Template:Spoiler, Template:Spoiler-other, and Template:Spoiler-about) is the better course -- they are useful in different circumstances. Spoiler is good for the most common case, when the spoiler is about the subject of the article and no other info is needed. Spoiler-about is useful when the spoiler is about something other than (or not exactly the same as) the article subject or when it is about multiple subjects. Spoiler-other is useful when the spoiler deals with both the article subject and another subject. By they way, the use of one or another of these templates ought to repace any more specific custom spoiler warning, such as the spoiler-whedon or any specialized ones for other fictional universes. DES 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! You did a much better job of summarizing the templates' intended applications than I've been able to. —Lifeisunfair 14:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - We only need one simple spoiler notice. Why make things complicated? -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion? Is this vote based upon your opinion (implied elsewhere) that we shouldn't even be wasting our "effort" on spoiler warnings? —Lifeisunfair 16:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Cburnett 22:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: as useful as, or more useful than, Template:Spoiler-other. -Sean Curtin 23:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Template:Spoiler-other discussion. - Sikon 08:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Persuaded by the above explanation. Conditional that they're not used when the spoiler is describing the same subject as the page name. Joe D (t) 13:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, fulfills a need and is better than spoiler-other --MarSch 13:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This debate has now caused a revert war on Wikipedia:Spoiler warning which I urge people intersted in it to visit. Discussion relevant to this debate is now also being conducted on that page's talk page. DES 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think both of these provide useful things that the existing template does not.-Splash 17:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Lifeisunfair. Nickptar 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not doing any harm. — P Ingerson (talk) 28 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)


Template:N, Template:Y, Template:No and Template:Yes[edit]

More templates to add a cutish picture to a vote; see below for the discussion about Template:Support and others. Radiant_>|< 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Note that I've merged the first two onto the latter two. Radiant_>|< 13:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - as I mentioned in the vote below, they are used in articles, not votes (look at the "What links here" for each ([5], [6], [7], [8]). If people start using them in votes, then I'll change my mind. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Terrible for votes, but wonderful for things like comparison tables. --W(t) 10:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep but don't dare use them for voting. smoddy 10:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Template:No and Template:Yes, but please don't use them for your opinions in any of the Wikipedia surveys (and for anyone considering such action, look at the strong opinions against Template:Support and Template:Oppose expressed below and consider the possibility that your vote might disappear if someone blanks the template—not that I am advocating such action). On the other hand, the almost unused redirects Template:N, and Template:Y should be deleted in my opinion. BlankVerse ∅ 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: These are just one set of numerous templates in the Template namespace that could be more useful if they had better documentation, both on their own Talk page, and elsewhere. Looking at Wikipedia:Template messages and Wikipedia:Template messages/General, it looks like there probably needs to be a new page created for all these handy little "tool" templates. BlankVerse ∅ 08:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reason cited above. —Lifeisunfair 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Radiant — I appreciate the diligence with which you round up potentially inappropriate templates, but can you please make a greater effort to understand their intended applications before proposing their deletion? Why would you assume that these templates were for use in voting, without even bothering to check? And why haven't you struck that claim? —Lifeisunfair 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In this case, I nominated them because BrokenSegue and ALoan mentioned in the discusion on Template:Oppose that they were quite similar. These four aren't much in use at the moment, I noticed as much - but they could have been subst'ed, and being not much in use is hardly a reason for keeping. And I hadn't struck that claim yet because it's been all of four hours since I made it. HTH. Radiant_>|< 13:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your reply and for striking the erroneous claim. I inquired because you removed the tfd tags after the templates' intended application was pointed out (and almost two hours had elapsed since then). I would appreciate if you would also strike your mistaken description of Template:Spoiler-about, as I requested more than a day ago. Thanks again! :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • These templates add no value. Why does a simple yes or no not suffice in a table. Even if you want the picture, there is still no need for a template. Thus substitute and delete --MarSch 13:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I just reviewed all the pages that curretly use these templates. All seem to be sensible, and similer future uses should be supported. Use in votes, which is not currently being done, would be another matter. DES 15:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Omegatron 15:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Their use for voting should not be discussed here, but at VP, as Dragons flight proposed below. — Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep, as long as they're not used for voting. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If you don't want to use them in votes, where do you want to use them? --Neigel von Teighen 23:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the template is used occasionally and it doesn't harm anything to keep it. Falphin 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsure. Why do we need "Yes" and "Red XN" when we have "✓" and "✗"? — Chameleon 08:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The answer is hidden in the edit summaries. Some browsers have trouble with the unicode characters. BlankVerse ∅ 08:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Two images are more useful than two little empty boxes (which is what "✓" and "✗" display as for me). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    We can't do that becuase, like the other users above me, I can't see the unicode characters. I just see little boxes. --michael180 13:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    And I see question marks, which totally defeats the point... smoddy 14:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I probably should have been more specific, for anyone wondering why the unicode characters don't show up on their computer. You need to have 1) A web browser that supports unicode (almost all recent web browsers), 2) A font with the unicode characters, and 3) Your browser set to display unicode, and the proper unicode font set as your default. BlankVerse ∅ 10:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Cburnett 16:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes ;) violet/riga (t) 18:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:US-camp-stub[edit]

Only one article currently links to it. It seems likely this template might be used to extend the morass from Wikipedia:Schools. --Tabor 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refer to WP:SFD. Joe D (t) 22:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, moving nomination to WP:SFD. --Tabor 23:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:USRepPresNominees and Template:USDemPresNominees[edit]

  • Massive templates which shows every Republican and Democratic Presidential nominee since the parties started. They're ugly, bigger than the template for people who were actually President, and double up on info already in succession boxes. Harro5 June 29, 2005 05:52 (UTC)
    • Keep but Edit to reduce text size, maybe remove image, etc. to make it smaller and more consistent with the Presidents template. The template is in a raw form, but can be made compact. The succession boxes only include the nominees immediately prior and after, so this template includes new information and links. For losers of the general election, this is often the only template on their biography page. NoSeptemberT 29 June 2005 08:51 (UTC)
    • Keep. These are helpful tools for browsing articles about US politicians. WMMartin June 29, 2005 13:20 (UTC)
  • keep by delete the graphics! When looked at 800x640 resolution, each line wraps, which makes the template HUGE. (Or shrink the graphic and put it in the top row.) BlankVerse ∅ 29 June 2005 13:27 (UTC)
    • Its just one big line. It will wrap on any resolution. --MarSch 29 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful navigational template sorting the candidates in chronological order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)
  • Delete - From Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Instructions#Deletion_criteria "templates should not be redundant". These templates are redundant with category:U.S. Republican Party presidential nominees and category:U.S. Democratic Party presidential nominees, not to mention they appear on articles that almost always already have one or more "footer" navigational templates. I believe we really need a policy about this and it should be at WP:CLS. I'll try to start a discussion on this topic. -- Rick Block (talk) June 29, 2005 18:23 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm the one who created the templates, so obviously a little biased in favor of them. I think they're useful for historical reference, as someone mentioned above. I was concerned about the size as well, but if anyone has any ideas how to resize it, you're more than welcome to do that. Maybe divide the template into 19th, 20th, and 21st century candidates, if that makes things easier? MDolson22 June 30, 2005 02:49 (UTC)
  • Delete unless heavily reformatted. It's too scrambled at this moment. Quite probably, it's better off as a list. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 09:25 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful navigational aid. Okay, so they could do with a bit of formatting but that's no reason to delete. Imagine if we deleted articles just because they needed formatiing! — P Ingerson (talk) 30 June 2005 10:27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important template, just reduce the size. --ThomasK June 30, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
  • Delete - too big, useless when actually placed in real articles. Better handled by an unordered category and an ordered list page. -- Cyrius|✎ 30 June 2005 21:38 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very helpful tool to visualize the extent of the parties nominees. BCV July 1, 2005 20:45 (UTC)
  • Keep, but make prettier/smaller. --tomf688(talk) July 2, 2005 19:28 (UTC)
Note: I recently changed the format of the template substantially, so make note of that when voting. --tomf688(talk) July 2, 2005 20:34 (UTC)
  • Keep. I prefer the version before tomf688's modifications, but keep either. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 07:49 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Not_deleted/June_2005&oldid=1083189212"