Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005 |
=== ===
Overkill template, with two other templates included (which are of value individually) and a list of seasons, with only one article done. Large, bulky and next to useless, as if needed, the two templates can be placed seperately and the list of seasons converted into a wikilink of 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, too heavy handed for its purpose. With that purpose only really being one article, it could just be subst:ed. - 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *keep -- 16:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
two persons questioned the original decision to delete, which led to reassignment here
Period of comment 9 August AM to 14 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM (originally to the deleted log) — 16 days
=== ===
Delete: It is listed as a template message for the user talk namespace, but it is too large to put on a user s talk page. It is also just a redirect to 01:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC) :Keep as per Alphax. -- 01:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, unnecessary. -- 05:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, pointless. 11:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Although I ve never seen this before, any template that is a redirect outside of the Template namespace should be a Speedy delete candidate. 12:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC) **Deleted. nonsense. 01:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: It was created as a bit of a joke - the idea being to substitute it into a user s talk page. I ve recreated a shorter, more useful version. Edit it mecilessly, but please don t delete it on sight. 10:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, now a valid, useful template. Sigh... 01:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 1 August AM to 10 August AM — 9 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 9 days
=== ===
This template have not been deleted but removed from all articles by 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
*Keep Is good for navigational purposes, much easier to use than category and tax boxes, especially for new users. 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. This template is currently a very, very partial list of the 350+ total possible sharks. Either it will always be rather incomplete, or it will be H--U--G--E--! Either way, it shouldn t be a navigation template. The template should be converted to a list, which can be grouped, annotated, illustrated, etc., and then a link to the new 15:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete - Originally going to say keep, but after reading [User:BlankVerse| Blank Verse ]] 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete agree with above. - 00:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC) *Listify and delete, as above. -- 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, and listify if felt necessary. - 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Aesthetically pleasing and extremely useful. This anti-template crusade is a pity. -- ॐ 15:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Agree with BlankVerse. The template can only contain small percentage of sharks, so a list is more appropriate in this case. 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep per Goethean. -- 20:14, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT) *Delete as per BlankVerse. It may be Aesthetically pleasing now but not when there are hundreds of links on it in the future if kept. 22:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be to listify: therefore I have moved the template to list of sharks and editors can do what they want with it. 11:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 1 August PM to 10 August PM — 9 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 9 days
=== ===
Delete: This template is unnecessary. We already have one for the City of Chicago and one for the state of Illinois which lists both the Chicagoland region and most of the cities in the regions. Having potentially three regional templates on a page ( and ) just seems excessive. Plus, the template isnt even fell formatted. -- 03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. Parts of Chicagoland lie within Indiana and Wisconsin. — 14:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Oppose. The template is informative. The easy solution is for to replace in articles about Chicago. -- ॐ 15:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC) **I think the base problem here needs a better solution. Very often you have a city and other governments that frequently go by the name of the city or other names. There is a lot of overlap. I hope this discussion becomes a step on the road to fixing the overall problem. In looking at the template in question, I don t see it as a big issue so I d vote Keep but maybe someone needs to make sure that only one of the two local ones listed above is used in an article. 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Oppose Keep. As Instantnood mentioned, this template is helpful for those regions of Chicagoland stretching into other states. -- 18:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Oppose Keep. Chicagoland comprises a significant proportion of the Illinois population as well as serves a navigational purpose for many chicagoland related pages. — oo64eva (Alex) ( ) @ 18:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Comment. Could people please use Keep or Delete, rather than Oppose It makes it harder to know if you are opposing the templates nomination (i.e. want to Keep it) or opposing it s existence (i.e. want to Delete it). I think it is usually the former, but I would rather not have to interpret every comment just to be sure. Thanks. 21:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC) *Strong Delete and categorize. An uncertainly defined list, as the discussion of 21:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC) **But Chicagoland is defined; see the 22:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep Chicagoland has over 8 million residents. I think that it would deserve a template. -- 03:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Merge, which I ve already taken the liberty of doing, into 04:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC) **Nah, this is unnecessary, keep, and have a look at the new and improved design of 04:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Useful template. If too many templates is the concern, there is already a link to 22:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 5 August AM to 6 August PM — 1 day Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 7 days
=== ===
Delete, well-meaning, but inappropriate way to generate 16:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
*Conditional Keep-It seems like a good idea and a good thing to have. If it isnt quite up to speed, I think it can definatly be fixed and brought up to standard. I dont quite understand your link about the Taxoboxes, so that is why I voted conditional keep. If you can show that there is a better way to do it, I will change my vote. -- 17:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Assembling a taxobox can be tricky. A template that handled the more common cases would be helpful. But this tempalte is rather more limited than its name implies. This templace creates a taxobox for a single animal species. It does not handle plants or fungi or other non-animal species. It does not handle taxoboxes for a group larger than a singel species (a family or order, say). It does not handle taxoboxes when any of the less common levels of classification should be used (sub-class or super-class, sub-phylem, etc). If this is to be retained, than the usage of its parameters, and these limitatiosn should be throughly documented, with a link to the page where general taxobox format is described, and its name should be changed to something less general sounding than Scientific classification . Perhaps 12:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 5 August PM to 11 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 7 days
=== ===
Redundant with . -- User:Docu *The template 15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep-This infobox is much better laid out then 16:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Didn t all Regions used to use It is fairly easy to add additional fields to the infobox. If an infobox can be made for all countries it should be easy for French regions.-- User:Docu *Like Gpyoung rightly said, sometimes people try too hard to standardize things, for no real reason. Individual infoboxes take more time to design in the first place, but then they are much more flexible in use than a generic infobox. Besides, I would like to point out that the infoboxes for French régions were all designed with the same format, so if you check several French régions , you ll have the impression the infobox is a unique standardized infobox, whereas in fact it is specific to each région . So we get both the benefit of standardization (uniform format) and the benefit of specific infoboxes (flexibility). 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
*Comment I prepared the replacement for . Is there anything missing (I agree, I could have prepared that before, please excuse) -- User:Docu *Delete, as they stand right now Alsace infobox is unneeded specialization. All you have to do is add the links to the files into the french region template and it will give you the present Alsace box. 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. -- 20:16, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT) *Comment on the surface this would look like a single use template. Is it likely to be included in more then one article 01:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *del, single use template. Also I agree with Grenavitar.-- 16:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Maybe a subst first. 07:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 6 August to 17 August AM — 11 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 19 days
=== ===
Worrying new template that ecourages repetition of opening paragraph above it for disambiguation. 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. (By which I mean bot all uses to 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC) **comment I wouldn t suggest botting this as suggested ... there are less than 250 uses and the likelihood is that more than one of the bot replacements would result in some manner of nonsense being writ. Would it be possible to subst: the existing uses if the template gets deleted, which would maintain the status quo on the articles that currently use it while removing it from circulation for new uses 01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, unnecessary template. — ) 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. That being voted, I ll say that "worrying is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air. 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC) *Comment. Note the (nearly) identical template, . Coincidentally, a template named was deleted per TFD consensus in 00:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *:3 to 1 is not exactly consensus , or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. — ) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC) *::Let s reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the old template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn t make any difference. -- 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Redundancy stinks. -- 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Redundancy is sometimes necessary. -- 01:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Redundant with . 09:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. redundant with . -- User:Docu
14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC) :I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. - 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC) ::I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they re practically identical. Anyone who s voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don t need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up. ::*comment considering the identity of the two templates, could the second be speedied if the first is deleted 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete redundant. - 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I don t understand why people want to delete this. It s not identical to ) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC) *Keep overdeletionism is a pain in the arse, redirectionism is better. 13:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, provides context not given by 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC) *:It s the wrong way to do disambiguation. Context is given by the first line/paragraph of the article. 08:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC) *:* comment No, it s an OK way to do disambiguation; it s just an inelegant way of doing it. There are few cases where application of the concept the template targets is needed (as noted below) and those few cases can be handled without the use of a template. 01:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. redundant with . -- User:Docu *Delete redundant with introductory paragraph. 06:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep see ) 21:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Please keep. There were some terrible revert wars over exactly how the disambig notice at the top of 00:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC) **comment I came very close to changing my vote to Keep , but then considered that an ad hoc disambiguation statement to handle the very contentious issues that you ve very rightly highlighted is as appropriate as a template, that the revert wars should not start over just because the template disappears because the text can be recapitulated exactly as it appears without the template being used. 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC) **comment it can be done with or instead. -- User:Docu *Delete — ) 21:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 10 August PM to 28 August PM — 18 days Removal from TFD 31 August AM — 20 days
==== ==== *Delete : See Talk Page for template. Short version: Suggest using ) 08:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. The author responded to questions about the template on the talk page by removing all text from the template. It was not clear what purpose it was intended to serve. Since it is empty, there is probably no reason to keep it. 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) *I m not bothered whether this is kept or not, but I ve re-added the content that was removed, while it s on TFD, and while it s still used by so many pages. 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC) **The content was not removed while it was on TfD, it was removed before. I think this needs to be returned to the last version before your change. As a piece of additional information, the new 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC) ***But this makes no sense - what are people voting on Voting on a blank template is meaningless - if it s going to stay blank, just speedy it. If you re going to vote on it, then obviously there s a possibility it could be kept, so people are voting on what it s going to look like after the vote. Anyway, that s not even the reason I unblanked it - just seeing the message this template has been blanked... at the bottom of one of the casino articles looked ugly and out of place. 08:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ****Since it is likely to be blanked after this vote, maybe it should have been a speedy since the vote was about the template at the time it was nominated. If you look at the editors talk page that created this template, you will see a long list of images posted by the editor that have been deleted. While it does not affect this vote, it does may one wonder. 23:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - Although big, i think this is a very useful template. -- 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep per reason by ZeWrestler - 17:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. There is no 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep It is very useful. It is much easier than finding other pages that have this information. I use this template allot. When a person reading about casinos on the strip, it makes sense that there should be an easy way to browse to other casinos that strike one s fancy. This is the type of thing that makes Wikipedia a pleasure. It happens to not take up very much space at the bottom of a page, either. Sherm. August 24, 2005 **I agree with you that ease of browsing is great, but the category system can do the job. The top of each article has a hyperlink to 11:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 11 August AM to 24 August AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 14 days
=== ===
*Delete: Looks like a vanity/advert link to a movie site. 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep:I don t know what you re talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it s not like it s mine, or that I m making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they re almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. -- 07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the external links section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don t see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. -- 07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC) :Well, ok.. count how many articles it s used in .. what are templates for anyway and what harm is it doing right now-- 08:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, Wikipedia s purpose is not to advertise other websites. 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC) *Keep This looks very similer to or to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC) **Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link. 12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete in its current form. It s not very useful and does seem to be vanity.-- 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC) *Keep, as per 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC) *Keep, I think it s useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.-- 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *keep, per DES -- 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep per 13:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete per the delete votes above. 00:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC) *Comment, will somebody delete it or remove the TFD from it already!! -- 13:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep unless there is some specific issue with the website, which I have not seen evidence of. 14:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, as per 17:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC) *Delete because the link is only in the form of domain.com/name (such as the one seen on 02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Late Delete. Just use link under External links heading. -- 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
period for comment 12 August AM to 29 August PM — 17 days Removed from TFD 30 August AM — 18 days
=== ===
Period for comment 12 Aug PM to 26 Aug AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 26 August AM — 13 days
=== ===
I propose deletion for several reasons: One is that this is a topic that, if not seen as inherently POV, at least attracts many POV-warriors. Furthermore, there is no need for this article series box; the subject is hard to reduce to a few articles, and bound to invite heated debates over what should and should not be included. Right now the articles are quite randomly choosen, and that is the improved version -- in the initial one, transgender was listed as a sexual orientation, and the debate on the talk page did not leave the impression that the maker of said template was much willing to discuss that obvious mistake. This is not the first attempt to do an ASB on this (or closely related) topics; see 13:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
*Delete - information better served by categories than a template. -- 13:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC) :*There are also a few lists regarding this and similar topics if one wishes for a more ordered reading guide. -- 13:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. It is a useful navigational tool and provides a fairly compact organization to much of the relevant knowledge. If important things are missing they should be added and organization improved, not just delete the whole thing. AlexR, most of your argument seems to boil down to I don t want to fight about what goes in this template , which is not a good reason to delete it. Certainly you wouldn t make the argument that we should delete the article on 14:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC) **You are misreading my arguments - the what goes in it is just one part of the problem; and unlike an article the real estate space in an ASB is very limited. -- 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC) ***Well I reread your statement including references to POV-warriors , heated debate and what you perceive as a failed discussion on transgender. Forgive me, but I still get the impression that you are complaining primarily about the difficulty in getting people to agree. If you have another argument, could you please try making it a little clearer for me Also, how many articles do you think it needs There are already 31 links there. Adding a few more wouldn t hurt, or it could be condensed by linking to list pages covering the appropriate topic, rather than all the pages individually. Still I don t see deletion as an appropriate solution to what I percieve as a content dispute. 18:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC) ****As I already said, I think the very format of an article series box is unsuitable for this subject - and I linked to a page going into more detail already. Subjects as complex as this one are, in my opinon, much better served by lists and categories; hence, no such ASB is the solution of my choice. (And as can be seen from the article linked above, that is not exactly a position I ve only held since yesterday.) And of course the fact that it is an extremely controversial subject does not help, either. Those, however, are two arguments, not one. As for how many - that is a pretty irrelevant question. It is which ones go into that are the problem, not how many . Should - for example - such an ASB try to go from homosexual and heterosexual , or from gay and lesbian , or maybe from androphilia and gynophilia Cases can be made for all three apporaches, but if they were put into one ASB that think would drown the article. OTOH, if one approach is choosen, it would be entirely appropriate, and from some points of view even necessary, to make a box for the other two approaches. Not a desireable idea, if you ask me. -- 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep at least for further discussion. I only created it 4 days ago, and I think the principle of a seriesbox is a useful one. It complements, rather than replaces, categories, because it highlights the major articles of the topic. Obviously there will be disagreement about what they are, and maybe about what the topic is, which will be handled in the usual Wikipedia way. (I m mystified by AlexR s comment about my not being willing to discuss the inclusion of transgender; I d said 3 days ago Let s see if there are any more comments .) 15:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC) :*You are That link very obviously did not belong there, so what was there to wait about Nevertheless, I, like you (hopefully), waited, and nothing came. So I removed the entry, but actually, this does not make this ASB any more useful. -- 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Regardless of the intentions of the creator, it s bound to end up being used for POV pushing, 17:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Categorify and Delete, doesn t have a linear series to it per 19:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC) **Although 17:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *Categorify and delete. The inherent POV attraction of this template can be seen already. Here s a question that will be among the first things that s going to attract POV-warriors and trolling: Why pink 19:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC) :* The 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC) :* As does 09:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, I like the idea but doesn t fit the rules on ) 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *What is 00:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC) **My comments at the pump are 01:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC) *Rename I don t really know how to do this voting thing. But my vote would be that this is worthy of being kept, but should be renamed to something like sexuality or sexual orientation issues . Because it isn t really about sexual orientation, is it It s about sexual orientation as it relates to politics and society. If this were about sexual orientation it would contain stuff like lgpt performers or strapons and stuff. Also, it might make more sense to make this be a separate category page type thing instead of a box that s always hanging there. 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *Bad idea but should be discussed in a more central place. 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
This thread s been going for nearly a fortnight (and the note at the top of this page says seven days for ). Votes thusfar: Delete: 6; Keep: 12; Rename (inc Delete or rename and keep and rename ): 5.
Looks like there s no consensus to delete, to me, so I m removing the tag. 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 12 August PM to 24 August PM — 12 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM &mdash 12 days
=== ===
I have no idea how many other of these there are, but I have just noticed them cropping up in 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 12 August PM to 23 August PM — 11 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 12 days
=== ===
A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on. 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete (nom) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its value are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete . -- 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC) *Keep useful. Improve rather than destruct. 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC) *Categorify. It s a good idea but it s far too big and unwieldy. I d like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category. 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC) **Comment: That s pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template s talk page or the fantasy talk page. -- 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The fantasy authors and list of fantasy authors should be dropped to just fantasy authors and that promoted up one level so it remains. 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC) **Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I ve divided the template into articles and categories , with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%. *Keep and correct if needed. 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *Weak keep, still needs trimming. I personally find vertical navboxes to be intrusive and ugly and prefer horizontal ones at the bottoms of articles, but that s a content issue. - 01:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC) *Comment I discussed my reasons for suggesting the deletion of this template at some length at 05:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep Useful. 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 14 August PM to 17 August AM — 2 days Removed from TFD 4 September PM — 22 days
=== ===
Why do we need these when we have categories They re huge and useless. ) 04:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *Easy access to Zelda and Mario games. There. -- 04:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep -- 06:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Useful navigational template, 07:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, but change that godawful color!-- 07:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep, but might I suggest that they are somewhat overly large Using abbreviations may help, rather than repeating the phrase super mario world five times. 08:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Useful navigational template. It goes at the bottom of the article, so it s not like it s getting in the way of anything important. 08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Categories can t be organized like these navigational templates can. 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. And I ve changed the colors to something hopefully less garish. 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I think the colors are boring now, but there s no good reason to get rid of the template. 18:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep: I agree on the colors. Is there any way to see the CSS sheets used by wikipedia ~ 21:56, 2005 August 16 (UTC) *Keep: Very useful navagation aide. I don t particularly care about the color much. 22:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I don t see any reason why to delete these. These pretty much define the purpose of navigational templates. -- 07:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep Obviously useful. 07:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep Useful. ----- 09:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Navigational templates are more useful than categories, since they can list entries in the poper order while categories can only do alphabetical order. 09:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Very good tool, although it really needs cleaning up to include SMW2:YI and other things 13:50, 17 August 2005 (BST) **Forgot to vote Keep. Also, Ingerson, Yoshi s Island IS there. -- 14:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC) *Keep - Very useful. 13:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - I don t know how many times i ve used this template, but i know its saved me a lot of time searching for various zelda related articles. -- 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep per above. 01:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - Simple but incredibly useful. Saved me many minutes of typing. 20:28, 19 August 2005 EST *Pwned... I mean Keep. Navigational assistant s despite redundancy only add s to Wikipedias ease of use. - 15:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep without a doubt. Why get rid of something that aids in navigation 17:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep very useful 23:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, useful; the Mario and Zelda series are well known and contain lots of games in the franchise -- 00:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. They are good for navigation through the Mario and Zelda series. -- 17:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep both, but change that color (Mario) and make the thing smaller (Mario); it dwarfs some of the smaller articles like 21:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC) *Keep both I ve said this before on other template pages, a template for a game series is VERY useful, especially for readers who glance over the categories link. 20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 16 August to 23 August — 8 days Removed from TFD 24 August — 9 days
=== )===
The novelty of research or terms used in this article is disputed. This is a rather obscure (and mostly unused) form of dispute resolution, and we already have far too many confusing variations on . 08:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC) *Seems like a perfectly appropriate way to identify cases of alleged original research. Also I don t see how it s a form of dispute resolution, since it simply directs users to the talk page. Thus, unless it actually does overlap with another template, keep. -- 13:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect. The real objection is that it duplicates 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect. This one is too wordy and confusing. — ) 20:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect to 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 7 August AM to 12 August PM — 5 days Removed from TFD 24 August AM — 17 days
=== ===
*Delete. This template is massive, containing a link for every country in a world. Most of the links are red and likely to stay red, because we simply don t need a Status of religious freedom article in countries where it simply isn t article-worthy. It s kinda like having the article 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: The templates author hasnt edited in six months. I have removed the red links, leaving the blue. 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep updated version. -- 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 17 August AM to 26 August PM — 9 days Removed from TFD 27 August AM — 10 days
=== ===
Very subjective box. People have started including their cities arbitrarily. District headquarters in Tamil Nadu or some such list would be more objective. -- 03:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
*Comment. This might be a good time to 14:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Categorify and delete. There s no particular connection (linear series per 19:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep and Move to 17:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 4 August AM to 10 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 8 days
=== ===
Another director template, same reasons as the previous directors templates see the 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Strong Keep!. I ve used the same argument every time a template for a major film director has come up (and will keep using it). Many of the average vistors to the Wikipedia who will look at one film by a director will also want to look up one or more other films by the same director. Instead of forcing that to be a two step process (either going to a category or to the director s main page), it is much easier to work with a well-designed navigation template. 12:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete for consistency. I very much agree with BlankVerse, and the deletion of the other templates does decrease the wiki s navagational functionality. However, if we are voting on this template, there is no reason why Lynch should have one if Spielberg, Hitch and Kubrick are denied one. 17:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep Same reson as for the shark template below, interesting that BlankVerse has a strong keep for this and a delete for the shark one. The only different is that there are 350+ species of sharks, but there will never be that many wikipedia articles. I think we need to do something about nav templates, as it is now this is very chaotic and non consistant, I suggest to implement a list of related articles that can be under the in other languages box. Then it will not take much space and can be much longer than a nav template today. Not sure if it can be done with wikimedia today, I asked at 04:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC) *Strong Keep For better overview and navigation. -- 09:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC) **Comment: There needs to be some policy on director s templates. The wiki should be consistent, and this template shouldn t be kept if Hitch et. al. were deleted. Again, I vehemently agree with the keep votes. 15:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Very Strong Keep For ThomasK s reasons and the fact that any sort of easy-to-read template always makes the wiki more user-friendly and presents information immediately. I also urge very, very strongly to reinstate the other deleted director templates, which I felt were very helpful and I was shocked to see them go. It s a shame we have people who actually think that making the wiki less legible is a good idea. KEEP THESE TEMPLATES!!! 16:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Conditional delete. While I m unhappy that useful director templates keep being deleted, it s unfair if this template stays and other director templates go. Either delete this template or undelete Spielberg, Hitchcock et al. -- 22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) **This is a problem, yes. This TFD has generated quite an interest for the keep camp, and it might be worth continuing it elsewhere to achieve some sort of consistency. Hopefully we can get the other templates reinstated, and the deletionists/anti-template brigade will leave us alone. 23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete as per Hitch, Spielberg, etc 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC) *Stong Keep. The template aids in user naviagation, conveys information and is compact. Consistency can not be a reason to delete this template, since the other director template have only been remove recently, and discussion has only just begun. -- 06:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC) *Categorify and delete for consistency and easier navigating. 16:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC) **Clicking an additional link each time a user wants to switch articles is meant to be easier Keep the category too: we should maximise the wiki s capabilities. The consistency argument (to which I was a subcriber) is redundant now that there are more keep participants (for a possible undelete and wider policy discussion) 17:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC) :Keep. The director templates are useful; it was wrong to delete the others and they should be brought back. 23:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I can t believe this discuission is even happening. Like all the director templates, this is very useful and hurts nobody. If we re worried about space, just make it horizontal instead of vertical. The deletion of the the other director templates was absurd, too. 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 2 August PM to 9 August PM — 7 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 8 days
=== ===
Why is this needed Many of the pages don t even exist that are listed in the template. -- 3:11, 3 Aug 2005 (CDT) *Delete and listify, would suffice. 08:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep-- 00:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC) *Very Strong Keep 02:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete and Listify replace with {sucessionBox} which would link to list. 02:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 3 August AM to 10 August AM — 7 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 7 days
=== ===
Note: Voting suspended. This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through What links here . The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted. *Delete: Redirected in earlier TfD, has now been orphaned except for some Talk and User pages. 01:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC) :* Note that the definition of 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)) ::* Note that this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia%3ATemplate_messages%2FLinks&diff=20959588&oldid=20484714 change] was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Template_talk%3ASee_details&diff=20955295&oldid=20946446 original intention] and the tag s overwhelmingly popular application. — 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking for when they mean and it is too much trouble with very little benefit to try and cure everyone of this confusion. 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC) *Comment: Despite the nominator s claim to the contrary, had not been orphaned. I just removed it from nineteen articles, many of which are extremely prominent: 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC) :*Comment: None of those articles appear in 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)) :::As stated above, I removed the template from all nineteen of those articles. — 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC) :*Comment: I suspect Whatlinkshere entries for a redirected template are created in the target template, thus Whatlinkshere:main probably contains some seemain references. The TfD vote can continue, this problem merely means that all cleanup deletions of redirected templates have to deal with such technical issues. ( 19:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)) :::Last night, when the nineteen articles in question were listed on the Whatlinkshere page, was not a redirect; it contained the TfD notice. As 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC) ::::Right. A Redirect page does not allow the TfD template, so the apparently-orphaned redirect was replaced with the TfD template. When I reported the templates were orphans those articles were not in Whatlinkshere:Seemain, and appeared when edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. ( 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)) :::::I m aware of the above. I meant that the redirect couldn t have been the cause of the glitch. — 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) :Along the way, I discovered the existence of ten additional templates that belong to this set: , , , , , , , , and . — 06:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC) ::For whatever reason, articles containing continue to appear on the list (without anyone adding the template). For the time being (until this problem has been resolved), I ve restored the redirect. (And if you really stop to think about it, a TfD message in an orphaned template serves little purpose.) — 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC) ::: What list ( 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)) :::: I was referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Seemain this list]. — 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC) ::::: I see. The articles which showed in Whatlinksher:Seemain were those which were edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. ( 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)) *Delete those extra templates #2-#20; where did those come from anyway As for the first one, I have no objection to the redirect. Templates sometimes get a longer whatlinkshere when articles containing them are touched , so for an oft-used template it s not necessarily possible to find all links to it. Try using google as an alternate method. 08:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC) :*Comment: The extra templates 2-20 are for multiple references, and will be converted later thus are not part of this TfD. ( 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)) :::As noted below, the numbered templates (excepting ) are extraneous. — 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep {seemain} and at least 2 through 4 of the others. Useful, and easier to maintain than typing in the same italicized sentence all the time. 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Redirect and to ; redirect to ; delete all of the other numbered templates (which are extraneous, because can link to any plural quantity of articles). — 17:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete or Redirect everything including to . 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep (I think it was easier to put this vote as an entry given the number of templates being discussed here, I am not voting twice.) 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep but delete all those starting from . We need a template for the plural form. The rest can be done by using . — 11:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC) ::The numbered variants have been 14:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 14 August AM to 25 August PM — 11 days Removed from TFD 1 September AM — 18 days
=== ===
Delete, categorize, and Listify: Another large incomplete navbox. I suppose it is appropriate to its contents that it is also uncommonly bleak, but it is still unneccessary. 19:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 16 August PM to 22 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 23 August PM — 7 days
=== ===
This might be useful, if most of the names were not wrong, thus disseminating misinformation. See the number of redirects in the template. Attempt to make a template do the work of a category. *Keep, why don t you just fix the errors instead of asking to have it deleted 05:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, replace with 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Didn t see any redirects in the template, and even if there were I would have edited it. I also think new users and readers find templates easier than categories, so, useful. 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. The wrong names are an attempt to simplify the issue. The complicated issues are discussed in the articles and if you are dissatisified with the discussion, please feel free to amend. A useful bunching of topics. Templates and categories can overlap. It s not a crime. Creator vote. 06:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. It looks boring, but it provides a useful array of related items on a given theme. -- 12:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC) *Keep. I see no problem having this template. No different in function than 14:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. VFD is not the place to resolve issues with the content of articles, neither is TFD for resolving a disagreement with the way things are named in a template. 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. — ) 22:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. TFD is not cleanup. If it s wrong, then by all means, please fix it. 00:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep per Firebug. -- 23:00, 25 Aug 2005 (CDT) *Keep. I agree with Eoghanacht s statement. – 19:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - for reasons above.-- 12:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 18 August AM to 29 August PM — 11 days Removed from TFD 30 August AM — 12 days
=== ===
Clearly and un-needed/un-wanted template designed entirely for POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling, has appeared on dozens of un-related articles, and clearly must be deleted-- 14:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. See 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I put it their. I have tryed to cearfully set up 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. -- 18:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Wikipedia is not a place for free speech or discussion. 18:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. As I mentioned on 18:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Speedy keey per 18:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - although the POV pushing part might be slightly possible. — ) 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep in agreement with the ability to discuss opposition to war in an NPOV manner. Further, the identity of the nominator is hidden as the IP address is an AOL multi-user address. Anything nominated anonymously should be removed from here by an admin immediately, just as anonymous or unsigned votes are to be ignored in the consideration of whether or not to delete an item. 01:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC) **But not an unsigned or anonymous nomination. - 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep the charges made in the nomination don t seem to bear scrutiny. - 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, having presumed that purpose is to inform, not persuade. (To make this clear to casual observer, I might [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anti-war&oldid=21574195#POV_concerns suggest renaming the project]). 14:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC) *Speedy Keep -- ) 22:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 18 August PM to 29 August PM — 11 days Removed from TFD 30 August AM — 11 days
=== ===
Delete: The point of this template appears to be easy navigation between articles about Beethoven. I don t think it helps particularly, though, for a number of reasons. The list of works calls for completion in order to be useful (because a bagatelle and two piano sonatas--in addition to the symphonies, of course--hardly deserve their own little template), which would not only be quite too huge for a template, but also already available in its right place ( ) 19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *keep: I think this is very useful. I have taken the liberty of adding 20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep But probably remove the works other than the symphonies. Certainly the current selection is poor. 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, but be merciless in deciding which works get onto the template. It might thus be necessary to junk the template at a later time if such agreement simply cannot be reached. - 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: I should ve clarified this in my original proposal, but I m only opposed to this template as a general Beethoven-related template, which would be POV-prone and hard to manage, since it can t be exhaustive. I m quite positive to a specific Beethoven symphonies template (and Beethoven piano sonatas , Beethoven string quartets etc, for that matter), though, which seems like a plausible result of the consensus so far. But I very much doubt the possibility of agreeing on a set of notable works for a template like this. Personally, I certainly wouldn t list Für Elise, for example, but I m sure this would meet some disagreement, by virtue of it being such a famous little piece. ) 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete: I find EldKatt s argument completely convincing. There are so many famous works, and we couldn t possibly fit them all in a template of reasonable size. 16:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - I find this to be a useful template -- 16:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete - I m convinced by EldKatt; Arcadian wants more prominent compositions , but a huge number of Beethoven s works are prominent; I think it would save time to modify Splash s proposal: be merciless and delete. FYI: I created the Beethoven string quartets and Beethoven piano sonatas templates. The only reason I think they are a good idea is because musicians refer to them by opus number: Piano Sonata No. 21 is mostly known as Op. 53 or The Waldstein , and String quartet No. 7 as Op. 59 No. 1 or Rasumovsky No. 1 , so the template really does aid navigation. I would not oppose a Beethoven symphonies navigation template (although should that include 14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, since it would be unmanageable to have all Beethoven s works in this template, and that would be the only reasonable way to proceed with it. I strongly support the idea of templates for subsets of his compositions, and Robert is right about the works being referred to by opus numbers ( hey, wanna get together tonight and play opus 131 -- that s the way musicians refer to Beethoven s pieces). For completeness and consistency -- though I m aware of the threat of Emerson s hobgoblins -- we could have templates for symphonies, concertos, incidental music, variations, and anything else by B. 15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 18 August PM to 25 August PM — 7 days Removed from TFD 31 August AM — 13 days
=== ===
Note: The content of this template is invisible, the source code is :} *Delete: Unused, useless. -- 04:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete in agreement with the above. - 06:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC) *I suspect this is an attempt to create a template to be used in templates that produce conditional output (I created a template of the same name some time ago, which was deleted last April). I ll ask the user who created the template about this, but there seem to be some others (which, no doubt, didn t work either), specifically ) 17:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC) ::It turns out ) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC) *Comment. A template by this name has been deleted once before. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Template%3AHide]. -- 06:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *delete useless and introduces potential for serious browser incompatibility. Note, there is an alternative, ::Although the local effect is similar, ) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC) :::Neat. This explanation or something similar should appear at ) 02:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep based on Rick Block, though I tend to agree with the excessive cleverness. Once pages start looking like programming code instead of text many editors shy away. 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 19 August AM to 27 August PM — 8 days Removed from TFD 1 September AM — 13 days
=== ===
Due to a delay in notification, voting (which began on August 9) has been extended.
Template was suggested 17 July but no interest/response to develop and not adequate as is - based on music genre template 14:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep Looks good to me; if it needs to develop, let s develop it, not delete it. -- 01:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC) *Keep and develop - as per what Baron Larf said. 13:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC) *Keep, valid infobox type thingy, needs development. 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - excellent template. — ) 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, if noone expressed any interest in using it, why have it hanging around In the end, it will just be replaced by a redesign if someone wants such an infobox and the signs would seem to be that they don t. - 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep - now being used 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *keep, used -- 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep, for the reasons cited above. — 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) *keep ditto. 20:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete. I don t see how it can be developed to a useful enough standard to become a great template on its proposed subject. For example, how useful is it to point out those three typical instruments If each pointed to an article such as the drum in Christian music then that would be a different matter, but I don t foresee those as realistic articles. It seems to me that a better solution would be to have one article on Christian Music and put the info in the article, with the instruments wikified as normal, and a see also at the bottom. Quite how Rock n Roll and Hip Hop justify places in a Christian Music template (again, without links to more specific articles, such as Christian Hop Hop ) I fail to see. It s essentially a collection of bemusing links that completely fail to deliver a satisfying navigational theme. -- 11:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC) :Some points made here don t seem to reflect the contents of the template - under the fusion head are links to the 13:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 9 August to 3 September — 25 days Removed from TFD 4 September — 26 days
=== ===
Apparently I missed some. Same reasoning as below. 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC) *Keep 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 19 August PM to 30 August AM — 10 days Removed from TFD 4 September PM — 15 days
=== ===
Same reasoning as above, except that I was told this was an exception so I m listing it separately. Its name is somewhat confusing, to say the least. 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Keep, useful for finding all the 16:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I ve not needed to use this yet, but I can see it s utility. In particular, there are terms in biology and medicine and sociology and et cetera that have changed meaning over the decades or centuries, which would be one application of the template. 00:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
*del, utterly confusing -- 12:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep — how else would you find all the 08:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. See 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep, and clarify for MarSch s sake. (It would be easier if e explained what was confusing, though... 
) 09:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep even though the name was chosen when the text of the template was visible below the redirect. -- User:Docu
*Keep convenient to explain as of redirects -- 00:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 19 August PM to 31 August AM — 11 days Removed from TFD 1 September AM — 12 days
=== and others===
, , , , , , , , , , , , , and associated categories.
I just came across this scheme for categorizing all redirects to clarify what they redirect to. However, in 99% of all cases that should be immediately obvious from the relevant names, and in others the talk pages should suffice. Few people look at redirects anyway, and attempting to templatize and categorize them all is misguided and serves no real purpose. 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
: These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again 2005-08-28 15:45 Z
Period of comment August 19 PM to September 2 AM — 13 days Removed from TFD September 3 AM — 14 days
=== ===
(insert section to make tfd-link to here work))
*Template:R from UN/LOCODE - Keep because no reason given by 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
:*To be fair, 16:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
*del, templates for categorizing! Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. -- 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
*keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. Those copying Wikipedia content should be able to prune these kinds of redirects out. -- 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*keep for reasons given above and below. 
10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep as above. -- User:Docu
Period of comment 19 August PM to 24 August PM — 5 days Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 14 days
======
Same reasoning as below, but I ve moved it out since Cryptic makes a good point. 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 19 August PM to 24 August PM — 5 days Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 14 days
=== ===
While this is prettier than 04:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
*Apparently under the criterion that since Wikipedia is not a democracy this template is useless or so. No cause for speedy though methinks. -- 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I speedied it because it s something that should on wikipedia anyway. But good point: I forget that admin percentages are down relative to all the new folks, so you can t just ask the next guy over to take a look. (So adminship is temporarily a big deal , Very very annoying :-/). Here s an example of the template in use, and I ve left it undeleted so you can pick it apart.
13:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
*Delete as per Mysidia. ~~ ) 13:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
*Delete, but only if such a consensus is reached via the TfD process; this is not a speedy deletion candidate. Kim: I recommend that you formally enter your vote (and allow another admin to close the debate). — 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*: You ve probably heard this over and over and over, but 15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, this is the prerogative of all Admins, to turn their adminstrative power into the ability to impose their will on the community. An admin should not function as a judge-jury-and-executioner, but as a member of the community who is no more or less special in the validity of their opinions as any other non-admin. Figuring out whether you have crossed the line into inappropriate behavior unbecoming of an admin is left as an excersize to the reader. :( 15:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::: I didn t use admin perogative, like you said, I m just an editor with a couple more buttons. In this case, there is sufficient (actually overwhelming ) consensus to delete, because of existing policy, which is supported by thousands of wikipedians. Does that help 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
::::: Invoking majority rule regarding the votes to delete this template when you ve been touting that this is not a democracy doesn t help, no. 20:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::::: Hmm, in this case I m referring to the inertia of getting all those people to change their mind, there was never any vote for WP:NOT, AFAIK. 23:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::1. Please consult a dictionary, and you ll find that the word vote doesn t necessarily imply that a decision will be reached via a numerical count. Used as a noun, vote can mean a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue or a means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot. Used as a verb, vote can mean to express one s preference for a candidate or for a proposed resolution of an issue; cast a vote or to express a choice or an opinion. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition — 16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::: Ah, wikipedia jargon, my fault. A vote in wikipedia parlance is a
:::::I didn t refer to this discussion as a vote ; I unambiguously referred to your vote (id est, your formal expression of preference for a proposed resolution of the issue). This page is the template equivalent of , so please don t lecture me on Wikipedia parlance. Please also refrain from arguing the widespread belief that VfD is misnamed, because it isn t.
:::::And even if I had used the term in the context that you suggest, I still wouldn t have been incorrect; vote ( the act or process of voting ) != majority vote. — 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::2. Yes, 16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::: Actually the CSD was only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren t really using process too well, so a lot of folks think that the current CSD rules are pretty weak. On the other hand, the fact that wikipedia is a consensus community is a given based on the fact that we re a 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Firstly, I referenced the deletion policies, not any particular deletion policy. Secondly, you claim that the 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::I m sorry but at no point does this template state that the result must be followed - it is merely an indicator. I don t want to cause a fuss, but you are almost violating 19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::: Well, it Counts Votes, that sucks quite enough. It s probably ok to undelete it temporarily, but you ll have to watch it carefully to make sure it doesn t get transcluded anywhere. (And explain to and warn every person who does so). 19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I don t recall seeing any consensus that this template should never be used ; that s based entirely upon your arbitrary assessment of its potential applications and your equally arbitrary interpretation of 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*Delete although it is pretty, and shouldn t have any effect on the closing admins decision, I think it would only make users vote in order to sway the decision, w/o reading the discussion. The discussion is the whole point, and if its going one way or another, maybe its becuase users changed their votes, and you would never know that if you stared at the pretty bar and didn t read the discussion. 19:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. I have two distinct reasons for keeping this. Reason number 1 : While I agree, not a democracy, I also feel that there should not be any prohibition against trying to summarize the state of a complicated discussion. In my mind that is likely to involve counting votes (for good or ill, we all do pay attention to how much support each side has). That said I wouldn t endorse using it on any but the most complicated couple percent of votes. Perhaps having a guideline that there must be 50+ participants before it can be used. Reason number 2 : I feel this comparison bar is a neat hack that is likely to be useful in article space. Large parts of the real world are a democracy and certainly Wikipedia talks about that. We could use this to show the outcome of real world votes. Not to mention comparisons where there are two elements but which are not neccesarily votes. Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress Size of Earth vs. Size of Sun Men vs. Women as CEOs Okay, so maybe all of those aren t necessarily good ideas, but I believe the widget could be useful even if there was/is consensus for never using it on VFD. 19:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
**To be quite honest, I did not think of its use in that manner. I think it maybe useful for showing outcome of things outside of wiki. Although I somewhat agree on large participation discussions, it may help see where we stand on the issue, I still have reservations about using for Wiki related discussions/votes, per my comments above. 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to explain bit better why deleting the template is useful in this case: Basically, every time this template is transcluded, it violates , or, (if you re actually a sane human being), it violates basic wiki-principles. So by keeping it either blanked or deleted, you kill a large number of birds violations with one stone. Everyone can at least blank a page, so I m not sure why the first people to spot this problem hadn t already done so.
:Perhaps becuase some people realize that their personal opinions and interpretations are not sacrosanct, and that following the correct process (instead of imposing said beliefs upon the entire community) might facilitate productive discourse, thereby bringing to light alternative perceptions and previously overlooked possibilities. — 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, one other thing I m demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing. Everyone has this power, so that means you too. Apply sane reasoning to the problem, and negotiate what you want. or just go ahead and do it You actually applied some of that power today, where you got me to temporarily undelete the template and subst an example here. But note the reasoning above as well, that s why I m keeping it deleted for the rest. If you d like a copy of the template someplace if you need to examine it further for some reason, give me a yell. 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:All of your arguments are based upon the (contested) claim that the template unequivocally violates 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree. Wikipedia is not supposed to be run by votes, no, but this template doesn t pretend that it is. It is simply a tool used to highlight the results of a vote. I m afraid that voting is commonplace and very much a part of Wikipedia, however - you re taking place in one now. Voting happens all over and is not always a bad thing - it can show consensus much easier than lots of text can. Note that I ve not voted on whether this should be deleted, so this isn t a comment on that. 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:: It s a poll to figure out what consensus is, not a vote. There s actually a rather non-subtle distinction. 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::So . . . you also possess the authority to override dictionary definitions — 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:: If there are votes cropping up all over wikipedia, then there is a significant danger of it failing to be a pedia for very much longer. There was a reason not to have votes, remember Anyway, I m glad you re taking over this particular tfd. Have a nice day. 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Violet/Riga is taking over My, how gracious of you to relinquish your self-appointed command. — 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep, but rename to something less specific (such as ), and avoid using the template in most (if not all) voting situations (especially those in which more than two options exist). I initially voted (yes, voted ) to delete, but 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*Rename to as per 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) *My 2 cents: I don t think admins should speedily delete anything while their VfD lag time still lasts, unless they can point to a specific 23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) *Comment: A way we could discourage abuse of this template would be to make sure it is only inserted into appropriate articles with the subst qualifier. 23:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
: As I understand it, was rejected because it was unneeded, and it assumed, in many cases, that there was a specific spot between keep and delete. All I did is report on what the unofficial vote tally was. That is not wrong, nor is it a double-standard. If you wanted to create your own page where you kept tallies on controversial votes, that would be fine.
: In any event, please do not edit the Signpost unless to fix an inaccuracy or a typo. I at least deserved the respect of having you talk to me on my talk page or in the Newsroom, rather than finding out on a Discussion page 3 days after you made the change. 05:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:With this message, I am now seriously opposing the policy against internal vote tallies on Wikipedia. There is clearly a hypocritical atmosphere here, and it isn t fair.
:You know what, that does it! I had no choice but to put this template into my userspace. It is now officially known as 07:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP This thing is neat... now if only I could figure out how to use it :. Whether or not majority votes are banned or whatever has nothing to do with this template. Just doing it for fun on a talk page (as it obviously has its uses there) is by itself enough reason to KEEEEEEEPPP 20:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
:OK, I really think this is awesome now, LOL (gets messed up if one side has 0 votes though) 20:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
*Keep Can be misused, and often shouldn t be used. Might be useful on occasions, and I see no benefit to deleting it. And 22:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
*Keep. Useful for many purposes, especially for summarising closed VfD discussions. -- 17:40:58, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
*Keep. Cool! 02:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 21 August AM to 3 September AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 13 days
=== ===
Delete: A convenient and systematic way to crowd the article namespace with suggestions for editors, which (last I checked) were deprecated. Also, if you re going to add this template to a page, you might as well just fulfill the suggestion and skip the extra step. -- ) 15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, agree with the above. - 15:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC) *Might be reasonable if placed on a talk page. Presumably should be placed only by an editor who is not sure what the proepr subcat is. weak keep if restricted to talk pages and properly documented. 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *Weak keep, but only if the template is moved from every article it is currently on to the articles talk pages. If not moved, then delete. 21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. The template is used at the bottom of the article, onobtrusively. The chemistry category now has 172 articles. If I knew the appropriate subcategory for these articles, I would go ahead and take care of it myself. The category has had the cleancat tag, on its talk page, since May 1. 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete, this is a good idea but it s better taken from the category (and WikiProject:chemistry) than by sticking a template on each related article and asking can someone else please help . 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC) *Delete: It s just in the way and superfluous. 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Questions: For the sake of curiosity, how does this template have less value or make any more of a problem than, for example, the stub or wikifacation templates, when those needs are evident in the articles And for the sake of efficiency, can anyone suggest a more effective method to accomplish the same thing, especially for those categories without a project For example, 01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *:Your time would probably be better spent recategorizing than slapping a template on each article. I don t really believe there is such a thing as overpopulation of a category. And if someone doesn t know where to categorize an article, we would want them to put it in a general category so that someone more knowledgable could come along and recategorize it properly. — 02:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC) *::I think putting a template on the category would be useful (e.g. this category is getting too large, please move items to its subcats ). Cleaner-uppers could more easily work from there. 13:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC) *: comment : 150 articles ... that is certainly not an example of overpopulation of a category in my opinion. On the other hand, 1,500 would present more of a problem. 01:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *:It usually requires significant expertise in a subject to expand a stub, and it can take a lot of work to wikify an article. IMHO, fussing with categories is fairly quick and requires only superficial knowledge. What we need is a tag placed in the category page that marks it as too large. -- ) 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*It might be useful to generalize this to accept a parameter to the category. Or perhaps simply a template which says: This article is not categorized specifically enough. Or perhaps not. As with article text, people will come along and fix this. Eventually. -- 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete as too specific, but I strongly encourage the generalization of this to a talk page located, tag. Hope that helps. 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete Too specific. Not very useful. -- Reinyday, 15 August 2005 *Delete. The template should be used as a general solution; this template places the category into the cleanup cateogory 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Constructive. -- 01:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete - doesn t seem to be used by any pages in the main namespace. -- 06:08, 2005 September 1 (UTC) *Delete - one should be able to put a template on the category page that needs cleaning out, which would then automatically propagate as a note on the pages categorized there. Doing this manually, and for one specific category only, is not the right way. -- 22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment I have acted on the suggestion of the template in those cases where it had been placed on articles. I have also placed a note on the Talk page of the template asking whether it has now completed in the service it was designed to perform. I still think that this can be deleted, but it is stated to perform a service and I d like to determine whether suporters for its being kept believe it has in fact served its purpose and is no longer required in the clean-up arsenal. 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment We get a lot of people placing articles into the general chemistry category because they know it is chem-related, but a lot of people are hesitant to categorise it any further (we have hundreds of sub-categories!). As such, it is useful. My concern is, how are the people (who are unfamiliar with chem) to know that this template exists If there are plenty of people who would use it, we should keep it. If it s too obscure/hard to find, then delete it. 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment discussion at 01:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 13 August PM to 1 Sept. PM — 19 days Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 22 days
=== ===
This template is overkill and an inappropriate adoption of the future events template. There s nothing speculative or unexpected about construction plans. If construction has occurred, there s nothing dramatic that should happen. The information contained in this article is essentially useless. The articles of every country in the world, every world head of state, and every living person covered in this encyclopedia is in more danger of being outdated that some building under construction. -- 11:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete agree with the above. Any good article should already make clear what items are just proposals. - 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Yes, there is speculation, in 22:56, 25 Aug 2005 (CDT) *Keep. Serves its purpose like the expected/planned product template. 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Delete It must be clear from the text that it is discussing something that will happen in the future. If it is retained it should be toned down to be less visually intrusive. 06:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. An article about proposed construction is not speculative. The construction is proposed, and the proposition itself is worthy of encyclopedic note. -- 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep Skyscraper fans are prone to be overenthuistic. It is an excellent idea to have a standardised warning. 21:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 21 August AM to 4 Sept. PM — 14 days Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 15 days
=== ===
Used by 09:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:Perhaps because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Sectio and perhaps because it is part of a set of templates that have a similar usage 10:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *keep. It is part of a series of templates for the taxobox that allow the taxobox to be more easily copied to other language pedias. If the nominator had contacted any of the editors before making the nomination, they would have know that and probably not nominated it. - 11:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC) **I only nominated it because it only contains plain text with no variables now. It seems that can be subst instead. Also, I did contact both editors after the nomination, which is standard practice. I would have contacted before if it were using a set of variables but seemed unused obsolete in that format. 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC) *del, this just makes taxoboxes more confusing -- 11:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep as people are using it. 18:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 23 August AM to 26 August PM — 3 days Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 13 days
=== ===
Er, I can t see how this is useful, all it does is add a category to the main namespace to do with editing, and on a minor issue - the order of categories!!. 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep It is used by 20:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This template is in active use. It may seem simple, but it s a convenient way to find all the articles in recent runs where a bot couldn t properly edit an article. These articles need manual attention so they can be automatically edited in the future, and so that they comply with Wikipedia style standards. It s not the sort order of the categories that s checked, it s that the interwiki and category and stub tags can be parsed properly, and that they are at the end of the article. Parse failures (which are what is tagged) are usually an indication that the article is messed up, often that it needs to be split into multiple articles. I usually get around to fixing these within a few days of doing a run, but I do need some way of finding them. -- 01:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 24 August AM to 2 Sept. PM — 9 days Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 12 days
===Numbered Seemain series===
This entry concerns the following templates: , , , , , , , , and Due to a delay in notification, voting (which began on August 15) has been extended.
Mentioned in the discussion on , it seems prudent to separate the discussions since people probably have different opinions here. Delete these, there are overly many of them and they re not very pointful. 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC) *Delete reasons from earlier discussions. 22:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep as below: they re useful. I feel more strongly about 2 to 4 than the rest though. 19:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep 2, 3, and 4. For lists larger than 4 I think there needs to be considered a split to the article section to which the list is attached. In cases where such a split is not warranted, then either a section see also or reference to a sectionized see also would be useful. In fact, the creation of a could be considered which would be identical to except it would include a reference to the page s see also section using an internal bookmark-link to that section via 00:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC) *Redirect to . Delete all of the others. The template serves a valid purpose, but it s 100% redundant with . The remainder are extraneous, because can accommodate any plural number of article links. — 00:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)