Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005

=== ===

Big. Creates clutter. Redundant of July 1, 2005 21:39 (UTC) *Keep. It is used on all related articles, it s up to date, and it s used on the main Spielberg article in place of a non up to date second list that was there. 1 July 2005 21:42 (UTC) *Keep There has been a more compact version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Template%3ASteven_Spielberg%27s_films&diff=13443351&oldid=11288192] The template is a useful navigational tool, providing the chronological guide to the films which the category fails to do. The provision of both a category and template could also mean that the category might include films he has produced, e.g. 1 July 2005 22:53 (UTC) *Categorify. July 2, 2005 08:18 (UTC) *Categorify agree with 2 July 2005 08:27 (UTC) :Comment So what about the version without the decade split Are you also going to list the Hitchcock and Kubrick templates for deletion too, for consistency The category does not provide the same information as this template. 2 July 2005 08:32 (UTC) ::Comment Actually, the 2 July 2005 08:45 (UTC) :::So what about rescuing it so that it doesn t look as bad If Hitch and Kubrick deserve templates, then so does Spielberg. I agree that templates should be used sparingly, but there is a difference between Spielberg and Crichton in terms of contribution to film history. Hitch and Kubrick worked with many screenwriters also... 2 July 2005 09:04 (UTC) ::::I was kind of implying that the other two should probably be Tfd as well. There is a significant diffrence between Spielber and Crichton, I was just getting more at, if someone wanted a template of Crichton based films or similiar. 2 July 2005 09:07 (UTC) :::::Ah, OK, sorry, didn t get that. I d be happier, then, if all three were up for deletion rather than only this. (BTW, this is my last post for a week cause I m off on holiday) 2 July 2005 09:16 (UTC) ::::::I agree, and would add them to this if 2 July 2005 22:37 (UTC) *keep, useful. -- 2 July 2005 14:59 (UTC) *Categorify per above. - July 2, 2005 17:37 (UTC) *Keep. Big Cluttery Hardly. -- ) July 2, 2005 19:22 (UTC) *Keep 2 July 2005 21:50 (UTC) *Categorify - July 2, 2005 22:00 (UTC) *Keep. I fail to see how its bulky or huge or even ugly.-- July 3, 2005 03:59 (UTC) *Keep. It serves it s purpose. Clean up if necessary, but basic idea is sound. July 6, 2005 22:19 (UTC) *Categorify Large and pointless July 3, 2005 17:07 (UTC) *Categorify. July 3, 2005 22:17 (UTC) *Categorify -- 4 July 2005 23:11 (UTC) *Keep, though I encourage the editors to condense and clean this up. July 6, 2005 07:40 (UTC)

=== ===

This template just takes a language name ( English ) and creates a link to its language ( July 1, 2005 21:42 (UTC) *KeepUsed many times -- July 1, 2005 21:54 (UTC) :There appear[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3ALanguage_link&limit=500&offset=0] to be fewer than 500 uses (though maybe this isn t the right way to check). I would be happy to clean out such uses if the consensus is to delete the template. — July 1, 2005 23:18 (UTC) *Comment: What is the purpose of this template Plain ol wikitext (e.g. 1 July 2005 23:04 (UTC) :The span identifies the text with the appropriate language, so that you can correctly embed a second language into a document that has been declared as some other language (note the xml:lang= en in the source of this page, for example). As far as I know, no major browser treats such text any differently, though it still may be useful in the future. More useful than the ll template, at least... ;) — July 1, 2005 23:14 (UTC) :: ) July 1, 2005 23:27 (UTC) ::At least Firefox does treat text marked with different languages differently. See the example on 1 July 2005 23:31 (UTC) :::Great example, thanks! Firefox appears to pass the test, IE6.0 (WinXP) gets about an A- (a few of the Japanese glyphs are missing), and Opera 8.0 (surprisingly) totally fails. Anyway, it s good to know that there is actually some value in using the lang attribute. Templates that assist in that definitely have some value; this language link one, though... not so much. — July 2, 2005 00:42 (UTC) :Rick was right. The idea for this was just an easy shortcut for language links that removes some of the extra text and space when typing out the name of a language. Instead of 2 July 2005 01:04 (UTC) *Delete - don t think it s necessary. 2 July 2005 09:39 (UTC) *substitute and delete -- 2 July 2005 15:03 (UTC) *One problem with this template is that not all languages are at articles entitled 2005-07-03 06:52:49 (UTC) *Keep. Even if used with subst: it makes editing simpler. As to the examples by Unlge G....well, those aren t exactly the most used languages/links-to-languages. July 3, 2005 06:57 (UTC) *Delete I ll be happy to run a bot to do the substitution work. -- July 3, 2005 14:50 (UTC) *Keep. -- 3 July 2005 19:21 (UTC) *Keep. I ve found the template useful. July 5, 2005 18:13 (UTC) *Delete, this isn t what we use templates for. 6 July 2005 02:14 (UTC) *Delete per the above. July 7, 2005 09:48 (UTC) *Delete: doesn t save all that much typing, and makes the document hierarchy unnecessarily complicated. 9 July 2005 10:32 (UTC) *Comment: Help me out here: what should we be using templates for, rather than this I m still a newbie to template world, that s why I made this one. -- 8 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

=== ===

Obsoleted by 2 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. There has been virtually no positive response to all my hard work making the new templates. Only complaints. So, fine. Have it your way, they re gone. — 3 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

*Delete. This template has become redundant. Just a comment: the new templates about each Chief Justice s courts are great (if a little HUMONGOUS), and are much more informative than this one. July 2, 2005 09:29 (UTC) *Not ready to vote yet, but I really do not like the replacement templates. For long-serving justices, like for example, July 2, 2005 13:33 (UTC) *Keep. Not because I made the template, but because the replacement templates are far too large and cluttery, especially for long-serving justices articles. -- ) July 2, 2005 19:25 (UTC) *Comment I ve shortened the new templates, so if you want to see how they look and then reconsider I d appreciate it. — 3 July 2005 02:37 (UTC) **Ooh, I just had another great template-shortening idea, so when it s done I ll fix everything up and it ll look a lot better. — 3 July 2005 02:44 (UTC) *Comment Hold off on deleting this template, since the initial reason for having them deleted has been resolved (at least for the time being). -- ) July 7, 2005 21:53 (UTC) *Comment: Another editor is working on a new set of Supreme Court composition templates. Inevitably he ll make one that fits in the standard format and obsoletes 8 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)

=== ===

Redirects to 00:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment 01:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

::Thank you, I had forgotten about that, and was thinking more in the lines of duplicate/redundant . 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

*Keep as it s a template being used with subst: , obviously Nothing else links to it , especially since User:Who removed it from where it was explained (I readded it there since). That doesn t really mean that it s not being used. Personally I prefer lifespan to lifetime , but as it redirects when using subst: , it doesn t matter which one is being used. -- User:Docu

=== ===

Can t see that we ll need this - most of the potential articles it lists will either go to VfD or remain as stubs - those that are worthwhile can easily go to see also sections, 11:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC) :No consensus to delete. - 04:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. 11:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

With summary style this should be redundant, and I hope it is eventually deleted, but at the moment the information in the articles isn t complete so they haven t been organised properly in summary style. I m willing to tolerate this template for a couple of weeks while the writing gets done, but I hope nobody gets too attached to it. 14:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

With article specific templates, can t they just add it as a subpage of the article, assuming it is used on more than one article in that topic, otherwise it could have just been added to the article as code. 15:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

*We can always prune the template once the articles finish going through the VFD process. Keep. 16:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It is too early to say whether this will become a useful template like the 18:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete This isn t 9|11. The 18:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Does it have to change the world to deserve a template This is English language Wiki, I m sure there are a lot more contributors from the UK than from Spain. I think we might be underestimating how many articles may be written in the future (there may be major controversies brought out by the investigations). As an American, I am amazed at the number of cricket articles :P, these Brits like to write about stuff in the UK :). 19:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

***Well, to be fair, a lot of them are written in Australia and other countries that can actually play the game ;) 01:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep for now. If the potential articles are a problem, the template can always be shortened later. 20:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC) *Keep for now... Some people are so deletionist. Grrr - It annoys me. We have no idea what affect this event ll have until its had time to have an effect. -- 22:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete until we ve had time to, um, what he said. I m just impressed when someone uses affect and effect correctly. 04:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep - might turn out to be useful; we can relist it later if it doesn t. 09:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. This template is speculation, because it assumes that those articles will be written in that form. Template namespace is not a crystal ball, so write the articles first and then (possibly) make a tl or cat for them. 10:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This is allready fairly usefull, and will become more so as time goes on and the main article is split up into smaller ones. *Delete. I don t see this having any use. The London event won t have nearly as many subarticles; the template is almost an invitation to develop sloppy, unneeded separate articles. Somebody just broke out the timeline; I m not even sure that was necessary. -- 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Comment: As of this moment, this is really a To Do List (what might be of interest in the future). The linked articles that are complete in the templete have already been linked to in the main article of the bombings, so is it necessary to keep them in this template currently And the others can be expanded if a need develops for the respective articles. I don t care either way what happens, as long as the unaddressed needs on the To Do List are addressed in the future. **Oops, forgot to sign! The previous unsigned comment was by 02:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep: it s a good to do list . If in a couple of month it looks like this template is useless, then we ll delete it. But not right now.-- 02:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep for now - but we should come back to the subject in a month or so whenit is clear how many 7/7 articles suvive. 08:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete of course. Or at least let s keep it out of articles when the articles it links to haven t even been written! — ) 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC) *I am trying to prune the list now. 02:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep, but prune the list. We don t need a whole article on response from world leaders, for instance, but a background article would be very useful! I think that an article like this would really put us on the map! For reasons of quality, not just speed of disseminating information. - 13:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep - useful -- 10:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Important for better overview. -- 10:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep as per Francs2000 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep as per 03:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep -- the template is something that seems useful, if the articles are kept, then this should be too. -- 12:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep 13:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep, at least for now. As was said above, we can always review and prune this later. -- 18:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep 19:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC) *Keep certainly for the time being. 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep of course. why does everyone want to delete useful things - 20:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. What 21:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, and don t use the 9|11 card, becuase in both, it was a terrorist attack, and lives were lost. 00:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Duplicates existing (and more descriptive) 06:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This template has been used on a handful of articles for over 2 months without any complaints. It signifies the dispute is specific to the title whereas NPOV-title is overly broad and too general because it mentions subject matter and organization (could be a dispute over anything which lessens the fact to the reader that there is a legitimate neutrality dispute somewhere) and its font is too small. 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:*The editor is forgetting my complaints about its use on every page that he added it to. (see my vote and comments below). - 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC) *Comment seems to be in much more frequent use than although neither is used all that much, unless they are normally substed, which seems unlikely. 06:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC) *Comment I don t think there is much practical use for this tag. If there is a dispute on a title, they should be directed to use 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC) ::{TitleDisputed} has been used on articles where there was no consensus for a new title (requested moves failed) and a legitimate neutrality dispute over the title remains. What is the relevance of 3RR as far as the quality of this template is concerned Would netoholic s infamous history be relevant on this TfD using your logic then too This template has been used for 2 months without complaint, it is more specific and clearer than {NPOV-title}. 09:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) :::I appologize, I did not mean it in an offensive manner, I merely stated that your history showed that you did not defer to the discussion pages. As far as the title, like I said, I think the one that is used the most often or is easier, should be used, and one of them redirected. I did not mean to belittle your comments, only was trying to make the suggestion to view the discussions and propose template creation first, as I myself am guilty of doing. 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC) ::::Your post once again is inaccurate/suggestive, I defer to the talk page all the time (look at my ratio of talk page edits to article edits on editcount). To what articles are you referring specifically How does supporting {TitleDisputed} not defer to the talk page Either there is a legitimate neutrality dispute or there is not. What about the point that {TitleDisputed} actually signifies specifically that the title is disputed whereas {NPOV-title} suggests that any number of multiple nebulous things could be disputed 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC) :::::Mainly referring to 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC) ::::The need arose to signify that just the title of an article was disputed, {NPOV-title} is/was insufficient as it is too generic/nebulous. {TitleDisputed} has been accepted for over 2 months, someone could have suggested a move/merge on the template s talk page to spark a discussion rather than going ahead with a TfD. 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC) *Merge the two templates. I can see the use but we don t need two of them, so pick whatever wording/layout is best and redirect the other there. 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Other template is sufficient. This template was created simply to address one set of article titles that the community had a full discussion and vote.( 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. As it is currently composed, this template is redundant with the NPOV-title template noted by 23:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC) *Delete 14:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Period of comments 17 July AM to 27 July PM — 10 days Removed from TFD 7 August PM — 21 days

=== ===

Delete after subst:ing. This effectively is just article text and is redundant with straightforward wikimarkup. It s only used in two articles (despite the bazillion that must refer to the 20thC), and has only been used by its author, who has been notified of this TfD. - 20:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:Delete -- 01:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC) :Delete, not useful. — ) 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC) :Delete, most articles in the Wikipedia would need it, and pretty much none do; this says that this template is a bad idea. -- 05:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC) :Comment as author : :: (a) 102 K using 20th followed by century is about a bazillion, i guess, but most of 600K is over 300K, and ::: only 50% of the first ten of those Google hits could use the hyphen in their titles, ::: none could have used the template, without a construction like :::: List of List of 20th century classical composers :::to produce the very odd and probably unhelpful :::: List of 20th century List of 20th century classical composers ::: and two more randomly chosen sets of 10 hits had 1 that could use a hyphen, and the template, :: so 5% of 102K, or 5K is a sounder estimate than 300K, :: (b) i may have used it more as (invisible) subst than as transclusion, so you have no idea how much i did, :: (c) for reason of the same invisibility, no one else is likely to use it without its being better publicized, :: (d) i d have used it more if i could recall the mnemonic reliably, or could look it up other than in my voluminous watch-list :: (e) one of the best reasons for it is to encourage the superscripting, which is never used e.g. within the number one Google hit, 20th century, nor within any of the top 10 hits, :: (f) the other best reason for it is encourage the hyphen, which is applicable not to every instance, but only to the adjectivial uses, such as (choosing from those first ten hits) the titles ::: 20th century classical music ::: List of 20th century classical composers ::: ::: ::: 20th-century philosophy :: of which all 5 call for the hyphen in the title but only the last i ve named has it there; :: (g) encouragement is needed, not just to overcome ignorance and carelessness, but bcz it s fussy wikimarkup: instead of the usual 16 chars for ::: 20th century :: (with 14 changes of key and two probable keyboard-peeks (one for each non-letter, non-digit, non-shift-key finger positioning), it takes 40 chars to do it right w/o the template, adding (efficiently, with a typo-saving cut&paste, but counting getting onto any shift key as the traditional half-stroke allowed for the case -shift key where the others are absent) not 14 keystrokes, but 29 further keystrokes and 9 further keyboard peeks, :: (h) the previously undiscussed hyphen, IMO mandated for adjectivial use, may or not be why this tmplt was not deleted when the no-hyphen one was, much sooner after creation than this one. -- 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC) :Keep It ain o big thang, especially since i have no intention of being the one to do more than this to bring it to anyone else s attention. But here s a vote after all, on the chance that some minds might change in response to the second set of arguments that suggests anything near a thorough look at the question. -- 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC) : Hmm, you do make valid points. It is a pain in the neck to make superscripts, and if it is substed, then there shouldn t be any problem with it. I change my vote to keep. -- 22:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 17 July PM to 26 July PM — 9 days Removed from TFD 7 August PM — 21 days

=== ===

The very subtle text differences seems like it would be something which could be added to 19:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC) *Agree with nom. Maybe a proposal on the talk page to adjust the existing template. 07:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - agree with Netoholic. Have seen this cause large problems on a few pages. - 07:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, fork. 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC) *Delete It looks worse and says nothing extra. 16:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep, the invitation to discuss the problems can be useful in certain cases. 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep, I can see a use for this in some cases. -- 01:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Provisional Delete if wording of NPOV template is at least reviewed. 19:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Merge to POV and maintain the longer text as the better version. Note that the present style of 22:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep More ways to say NPOV are good. 22:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete and redirect to NPOV. 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC) *Delete. 13:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep, or at least use the text for the other template. -- 17:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Perspicuous. 00:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. as per nominator and Radiant. The extra text may be a good addition to Template:NPOV . 01:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC) *Keep. The Standard NPOV looks better for those using Wikipedia just as a source of information. (Direct. To the point). Long NPOV is better suited to other Wikipedians who are actively editing the content. ie: I think I fixed the NPOV. Let me know if there s anything I left out. For example, LongNPOV makes reference to the NPOV dispute policy itself, which novices don t nessessarily need to read at first glance. LongNPOV works better as a temporary stepping stone between template:NPOV and normal article. Since some articles can remain NPOV for some time, Template:NPOV can serve as a warning to users, until someone comes up with a way to fix it. Then, it can be replaced with LongNPOV for a while. This way the actual repairs last a shorter time, leading eventually to POV s removal from a page. (Sorry for length) 18:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 16 July to 6 August — 21 days Removed from TFD 7 August — 22 days

=== )===

In the discussion at 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. according to :Previous delete discussion is in 22:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep Useful note to readers. In addition, as Courtland suggested, a Comprehensive List template and category should be added. *Mild Keep There are lists of clearly enumerable items which ought to be complete. A hypothetical List of all US Presidents for example, should be complete, and if it isn t, a tag like this should warn the reader not to rely on it and encourage any editor to complete it. On the other hand 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep for the same reasons as above. While it shouldn t be used for open-ended lists, it s a useful tool to let people know that a (generally) static list is not complete, such as the list of 14:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep Many lists on Wikipedia are enumerable, but incomplete. 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC) *keep-- 03:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Note I have added a usage note to the template s talk page, and i hav started to remove it from open-ended lists, which seem to be the majority of the places it has been used, of which there are over 2200. 18:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. An incomplete list should be regarded as a list equivalent of a stub. –  18:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

keep I remember seeing another similar template up for deleteion vote about a month or two ago and the result was to use this one and delete the other. 18:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. This is a very useful template. -- 19:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Is useful when the reader might otherwise be justified in assuming that the list is complete when in reality it is not. Lists which are only of notable entries would not necessarily need the template, but it really comes in handy otherwise. -- 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC) *Delete Currently written as if it should be used on article pages. But this sort of please expand information is clearly for editors, so should go on talk page. Second choice: Reword and limit to talk pages only. 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. By the way, there is the Dynamic list template (see 21:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Regardless of whether a list will ever be complete, users can still be informed that the list is incomplete and that they can help expand it. 23:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep.Useful for works in progress. 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep - useful template. 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep.The lack of completeness in a list is an important piece of information with respect to interpretation of the context and validity of the list. However, considering the comments about most lists being incomplete (those which are not in the dynamic-class, that is), maybe we should consider making a replacement template ... => to the best of our knowledge, this list is exhaustive and complete ... which would be used on far fewer lists and would have a higher semantic value. Just a thought. Until such a debate has been raised and born fruit, let s keep this template or one of its cousins (, for instance). Also, I think this template should appear in the article space and not in the discussion space (referring to some comments in an earlier delete vote above). 23:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC) *Keep This template is in use by many thousands of articles, justifying it s usefulness. It also welcomes new visitors to add new information to the article. -- 01:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Very useful for many articles. -- 03:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Useful for pointing out lists that are woefully incomplete and encouraging edits. -- 04:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep I do admit though that almost every list of whatever has the potential for needing further edits. *Keep. extremely useful. Not sure who made the last edit, but it s not strictly true - many lists have a finite number of possible members. A list of 20th century heads of state may be incomplete on Wikipedia (if such a list exists), but it is a finite list. 05:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. No need to even justify. (rolling eyes). 08:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Very useful. 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Clearly. 10:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. As Brian0918 mentioned, while some lists may never be truly completed, there is a difference between almost complete and woefully incomplete ; despite the wording, I think the template serves to stave off the latter pretty well.-- 13:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This is useful for lists whose members can be determined with a reasonable amount of effort. Obviously it doesn t apply for open-ended lists. 19:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Very useful. Some lists can be completed. -- 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Useful for lists that have a finite member count, but where the original author e.g. did not have the knowledge to supply all members. Both useful for readers (as a warning) and editors (as an encouragement). Perhaps even useful for some not-so finite lists. For instance a hypothetical list Norse mythical beings featuring only Verðandi could perhaps use this template. 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. 23:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC) *Kee[ ovbiously. 23:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep - I think it does serve a useful purpose. -- 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep: Useful. For example, see its use at the article on ) 02:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Strong Keep Useful for many of the above reasons. ~ 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Not all newbies realize they can edit wikipedia, and many lists are incomplete, thus this list is useful for at least two reasons. - 12:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC) *Comment. While it is certainly true that almost any article can be updated there are specific lists which are in obvious need of expansion. 23:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. There is such a thing as a complete list (czars of Russia), ergo, there is such a thing as an incomplete list. Just because incomplete is in the majority doesn t mean it should be taken for granted that all lists are complete. 18:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Many people might not know all of something, but would at least like to start the list. First, the template alerts other people who visit the article that the list is incomplete; second, the category alerts other people browsing for work that that list is incomplete. For example, if a person knew most of the enemy names from 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep 06:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Some lists are complete, others are not. This template is a useful prompt to the editor, dispelling the inherent ambiguity of lists. The associated category provides a pointer to lists that could be expanded. -- 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC) *Comment. Perhaps there should be a open-ended list template, to prevent people from applying this one to open-ended lists Maybe not. -- 20:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC) **Comment response. There is; it is . 01:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Can someone provide a link to the March 2005 discussion — ) 07:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Useful to label lists that could be, but are not yet, complete. -- 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC) *Strong keep. Not all lists could be infinitely added to, and not all lists are labeled as being known to be complete. This template has a specific use: for adding to lists as a warning to users that this list is known to be very incomplete. -- 19:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC) *Strong Keep. This is a very useful indicator that will be greatly missed if removed. — 08:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC) *Keep - even though more experienced editors may feel it is stating the obvious, as mentioned by others above it is a useful reminder and encourages the less experienced readers to edit-- 11:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

I am nominating these here for discussion in light of July 3, 2005 21:04 (UTC)

*Keep main and redirect seemain to it. Update template instructions to reflect common usage. July 3, 2005 21:04 (UTC) *Keep main, worded as Main article: , and redirect seemain to it. 3 July 2005 21:10 (UTC) *Keep main, worded as Main article: , and redirect seemain to it. 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC) *Ditto. Keep main, worded as Main article: , and redirect seemain to it. -- 3 July 2005 22:28 (UTC) *Keep main and seemain. ( 3 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)) *Keep main OR seemain. -- 4 July 2005 03:07 (UTC) *Merge both (e.g. keep one and redir the other). July 4, 2005 08:45 (UTC) *Replace Seemain and Seesubarticle by 4 July 2005 10:01 (UTC) *Keep main, worded as Main article: , and redirect seemain to it. 4 July 2005 14:11 (UTC) *Keep - See {Subarticleof} below.-- 4 July 2005 21:36 (UTC) *Keep seemain and delete subarticle. Each article should stand on its own. A subarticle is an unnecessary and unclear concept. Main article 5 July 2005 11:24 (UTC) *Keep both, or very weak second choice, keep only Seemain. No redirect, and no merge, however. 5 July 2005 21:15 (UTC) *Strong keep for the very widely and generally correctly used , keep for the mostly incorrectly used , but we must reword the template to make the meaning clear. I ve spent some time trying to fix uses of the main template that should have been seemain, and am willing to help in this task. --- 6 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Don t spend too much effort fixing usage right now. The week after this is resolved I ll send a bot to convert obvious misapplication of . What is left will require examination. ( 7 July 2005 15:47 (UTC))

====Abuse of TFD====

The preceding is abuse of TFD, in using it for dispute resolution rather than deletion. ( 3 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)) **If you seriously believe this to be abuse, please take it to July 4, 2005 08:45 (UTC)

Is this vote valid Doesn t seem that instructions have been followed, per 5 July 2005 06:32 (UTC))

**** I. Edit the template. **** II. Create its TfD subsection. **** III. Give due notice. == TfD nomination of Template:TemplateName ==

:MarSch is pushing for them to turned into redirects which is effectively a form of deletion, and he was citing the previous TFD as supporting his argument. So I think it makes plenty of sense to discuss the issue here. We don t exactly have a page on Templates for redirection . If you want to make a case for a better forum for cases like this, please do so. July 3, 2005 22:58 (UTC) ::I wasn t citing tfd. StBalBach brought it up as an argument, so I had a look and countered. -- 4 July 2005 11:36 (UTC) :: A better forum is the template s Template talk pages, where discussion exists and several threads remain unanswered. If a wider opinion was wanted there are more general forums, including Village Pump. ( 3 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)) :I must admid that the opening gambit of I am nominating these here for discussion in light of User:MarSch s persistent effort [1] to have them redirected... strikes me somewhat as 4 July 2005 01:34 (UTC) ::Still, Dragons flight has a point in that there is no mechanism to officially arrive at consensus over redirects, redirects that effectivly result in a deletion. Plus, often time VfD s result in redirects. Seems reasonable to me. 4 July 2005 01:45 (UTC) ::: There is a mechanism to officially arrive at consensus over redirects. Have the officials deal with it the same as any edit problem. In this case, MarSch stopped participating in the discussion, which makes any agreements a tad difficult. ( 4 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)) :::: I did not stop participating in the discussion, there simply wasn t much discussion any more. I figured it was time for some action and see whether any problems would turn up. Both templates were kept in the previous tfd because they are for different purposes. Unfortunately it is nigh impossible to figure out which is which. Therefore these templates aren t used in consistent ways, which becomes clear when they are redirected to templates which are nonambiguous. I don t see any other use these templates can filfull except as glorified wikilinks for vaguely related articles which is not particularly useful. So delete these ambiguous templates and replace with {seesubarticle} and {subarticleof} where appropriate-- 4 July 2005 11:48 (UTC) ::::: Well, let s see whether there was no discussion any more: ( 5 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)) :::::* In : :::::* A reminder to test rather than redirecting without testing: :::::** On the other hand, if we blank main and turn it into a redirect I d expect a revolt (or at least a revert-war). How do others think we should proceed -Lommer | talk 00:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::*** I think we should. Also none of my trials on Esperanto and Austria were reverted/changed. Actually it would be even simpler if we just redirected main and seemain. --MarSch 12:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::**** Before you break a lot, test on at least 20 randomly chosen articles which are presently using Main. (SEWilco 15:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)) :::::**** You might also look at Global warming. (SEWilco 15:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)) :::::**** I see a lot of potential seesubarticle}}s, but no problems. All these articles are basically about different aspects of global warming. They don t have the backlink to acknowledge this yet though. Do you feel this would be inappropriate I am not sure if you want me to convert to use of subarticles (and break something) on this article, so I have not done this, though I think it would be easy. It is my hope that this is what most article will look like this when they grow. I m having a lot of trouble with similar but unlinked articles for which the relationship is unclear. --MarSch 11:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::***** It would be better to test while risking breaking something than to redirect everything without testing. (SEWilco 14:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)) :::::* New templates being tested and open to suggestions: :::::** You think I should advertize use of these templates at VP. I m trying not to rush this, these new templates are still being tested :) I m not sure whether you think subarticle}} is too visible at the top or not visible enough, but I m open to suggetsions and boldness. If you think it usefull you yourself could advertize at VP :) --MarSch 11:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::* A suggestion for changing phrasing and combination: :::::** I think changing the text of main to something like that in Template:Subarticleof would be the best solution here. At the moment the similarity and lack of specifity in Template:Main makes it so that most people (myself included) don t even realize it is supposed to be different than Seemain. I think that For a more detailed treatment, etc. is far too verbose for what it is supposed to be. A combination of Template:Subarticleof and Template:Seemain as the two choices would be great and would prevent confusion. --Fastfission 04:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::* Concept of hierarchy is disturbing: :::::** The problem is not with the template names: the difference between Subarticleof and Seesubarticle is clear, it s the concept of Subarticleof that s disturbing. It implies making a hierachy of all the articles, with the problems that Tomhab cited above. 500LL June 29, 2005 15:52 (UTC)

*A merge redirect is not really a form of deletion, so it can be treated like a regular edit by being July 4, 2005 08:45 (UTC)

or are useful at times (e.g. 6 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)

**I never said every article needs to be made subordinate to another or that there can only be one main article. That s just Stbalbach s imagination. -- 6 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)

====As of 5 July 2005 21:39 (UTC) ====

:Keep. = 11 Delete. = 1 (Although several that voted for deletion here voted noted a preference for merge in the votes for {Main}.) ::Courtesy of you friendly neighborhood 5 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

=== ===

This template is part of a larger effort to create a heirarchal system of Wikipedia articles, where articles are marked as Main or Sub based on a system of templates. Further background reading can be found at 3 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)

*Delete. 3 July 2005 20:20 (UTC) *Keep, see main / seemain discussion immediately above. July 3, 2005 21:06 (UTC) **Can you provide an example of a heirarchal relationship, where an article is dependent upon another, and does not stand on its own The only one that comes to mind is 3 July 2005 21:15 (UTC) ***They may not use the template currently but there are plenty of examples in such places as July 3, 2005 21:34 (UTC) ****I would have to disagree with those examples being heirarchal (dependent) relationships. One should be able to read 3 July 2005 21:45 (UTC) *****Well then I guess we disagree on when it should be used. July 3, 2005 22:03 (UTC) *******I would like to see the clear-cut heirarchal cases. They dont exist. The Simpsons case brought up here is because there is no lead section, per the rules, all articles must have a lead section. If it had a lead section, providing context, it wouldnt be dependent on any other article. 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC) *Delete I have seen this template in places where one article is not a subarticle of the other one. This template implies that there is a hierarchical relationship between articles on Wikipedia. There is none in the vast majority of cases. MarSch seems to view this template as a replacement for 3 July 2005 21:32 (UTC) ::: Willing to change my mind if 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC) :::::: Changed my mind. Unonditional delete. 6 July 2005 02:28 (UTC) ::::Thats the problem, there is no situation where creating a heirarchy is supposed to be done. Style and Guidelines does not talk about it. A discussion of its merits are worthwhile, but until its been agreed, this template should not be in existence, cart before the horse. 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC) *Keep, probably the rules need tightening up, but it works for things like 3 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Weak keep--with qualification. I agree with comment above--IF the rules are tightened, then this could be a useful template. However, I will only vote to keep if the subarticle template is only used on obvious subarticles like 3 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

*Keep Removing 4 July 2005 07:34 (UTC) *Delete, put the article in a related category instead. July 4, 2005 08:12 (UTC) *Keep, creator of this template and its companion . Intended as replacements for {main} and {seemain}, because they are confusingly named and worded.The purpose of these templates is to indicate the existence of a whole article on a topic which also has a section in another article. For exmaple if 4 July 2005 11:28 (UTC) :Perhaps a compromise is in order since no consensus is being reached. Obviously, there was no consensus that {main} and {seemain} were confusingly named and worded. The fact that so many people objected to the template change indicates a lack of consensus. Why not let the {main} and {seemain} templates revert back to their original use and keep your new template for subarticles. This way if someone likes the subarticle template they can use it, or people can continue to use the old templates. Over time, people will either use the new template or not use it, depending on if they agree with it. -- 4 July 2005 11:41 (UTC) ::The fact that so many people objected to the redirect is because {main} and {seemain} are ambiguous and unclear and used liberally cpoying from proper uses. You are the first to dispute their ambiguousness. Even in the above discussion people are voting to redirect {seemain} to {main} and not because they are clearly different. -- 4 July 2005 12:30 (UTC) :::When I said was there was no consensus, I meant about the templates being confusing (which was your original basis for changing them). In the above discussion people are voting to use the templates as they were used before, with the change that seemain isn t really needed and should redirect to main. The point is that people like these templates as they have been used. To compromise, why not let them continue to be used in this way. In return, your new subarticle template could continue to exist and we can then see if people use it.-- 4 July 2005 12:44 (UTC) *Extreme delete. Wikipedia has an excellent policy which says that 4 July 2005 14:08 (UTC) ::I d say that ends the discussion. This policy lays out the subpage guidelines in very clear terms. It also refers to the policy 4 July 2005 14:33 (UTC) :::One could point to ) 4 July 2005 21:22 (UTC) *Delete. Subpages are a bad idea and were deprecated four years ago, which is why the software no longer directly supports them. -- 4 July 2005 15:47 (UTC) **Response Actually 5 July 2005 04:58 (UTC) *Delete Indicates a heirarchal relationship among pages, which there shouldn t be. -- 4 July 2005 16:47 (UTC) *Keep - Ok, I got this off the {Template} guide. Now a vocal minority wants to change the rules. I think there s confusion between subpages and subarticles . Wikipedia s policy is anti-subpages, with the possible exception of sandboxes and archives of Talk. However subarticles have their place. In fact, this is spelled out in 4 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)) :Wikipedia articles do not have a heirarchal relationship. A main page can spin off sub-topics, but the sub-topics are not tied to the main page. It s an entirely new stand-alone article. This template attempts to create a software defined linked-list between articles going both upward and downward. That is clearly not allowed. This whole discussion is really more appropriate for RFC where I suspect it will go to next, seeing as its allready been debated by Larry Singer and others years ago and decided on. 4 July 2005 22:16 (UTC) ::Yes. And I suggest that the RFC subject be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special:Contributions&target=Stbalbach this recent crusade.] It appears that we should all reread 4 July 2005 22:36 (UTC) :::You wont get rabies. Where did I bite a newbie BTW all that crusade link shows is I reverted this new template in articles I personally care about. The template is a violation of Wikipedia rules about not creating heirarchies, its voluntarary usage. :::Also, I dont think your understanding what this vote is about. This template is new, it totally changes how Wikipedia has been doing things for the past 4 years, it goes against what the founders of Wikipedia envisioned on how Wikipedia works. Do you support that 5 July 2005 03:39 (UTC) ::::This template s been listed on the main {Template} page since I started in March. Therefore, to those of us that are newer to Wikipedia (