Jump to content

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

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

Template:Steven Spielberg's films

[edit]

Big. Creates clutter. Redundant of Category:Spielberg films. Unnecessary. K1Bond007 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. Elfguy 1 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)
  • Keep There has been a more compact version [1] 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. Poltergeist film series. Individual articles would have to be edited to make the template's inclusion more fluid, but the horizontal format of the template is a neutral, accommodating design. Since the TFD began, I have reduced the text size to conform to the Hitchcock template — this, of course, reduces the "clutter". The JPS 1 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)
  • Categorify. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 08:18 (UTC)
  • Categorify agree with Radiant & K1Bond007, too bulky and ugly. Not laid out very well, and would detract article appearance. Categorizing is better suited for this. <>Who?¿? 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. The JPS 2 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)
Comment Actually, the Template:Alfred Hitchcock's films, doesn't look as bad. However, since you mentioned it, although Spielberg had great influence over the films, what about the writers, like Michael Crichton, for example. Are we going to add a template for all of his films, which are as notable? Then we would have 2 big templates on the article. The only thing this template provides is a date for the other films, and who directed, which btw should be listed on every film article anyway. Category has all of them listed, even the ones that weren't good enough to make it on the template. <>Who?¿? 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... The JPS 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. <>Who?¿? 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) The JPS 2 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)
I agree, and would add them to this if K1Bond007 didnt have any objections. <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
  • keep, useful. --MarSch 2 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
  • Categorify per above. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
  • Keep. Big? Cluttery? Hardly. --tomf688(talk) July 2, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
  • Keep BlankVerse ∅ 2 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
  • Categorify - SimonP July 2, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
  • Keep. I fail to see how its bulky or huge or even ugly.--Kross July 3, 2005 03:59 (UTC)
  • Keep. It serves it's purpose. Clean up if necessary, but basic idea is sound. Kev July 6, 2005 22:19 (UTC)
  • Categorify Large and pointless Motor July 3, 2005 17:07 (UTC)
  • Categorify. The Color Purple is just about the novel and suddenly has a big "movies by Spielberg" template on it, that is quite confusing. --Conti|✉ July 3, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
  • Categorify --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I encourage the editors to condense and clean this up. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 07:40 (UTC)

Template:ll

[edit]

This template just takes a language name (English) and creates a link to its language (English language). This does not seem helpful at all to me. I've seen a few instances of links to countries when a language link was intended, but even assuming this is a significant problem, it doesn't seem likely that this template will help. I recommend deletion. (Note that I didn't put the tfd notice onto the template, since I think it would be disruptive in the places that the template is used.) —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 1, 2005 21:42 (UTC)

  • KeepUsed many times --michael180 July 1, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
There appear[2] 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. —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 1, 2005 23:18 (UTC)
  • Comment: What is the purpose of this template? Plain ol' wikitext (e.g. [[English language|English]]) does the exact same thing and is generally easier to edit. Does the template offer any advantage? Its talk page does not explain, but subsidiary templates (e.g. Template:Lang-ar) we find this: {{ll|Arabic}}: <span lang="ar">{{{1}}}</span>. What does this do? —Charles P. (Mirv) 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... ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 1, 2005 23:14 (UTC)
template:ll appears to be simply a shortcut to save some typing. I'll leave a note for this template's creator to comment here. -- Rick Block (talk) July 1, 2005 23:27 (UTC)
At least Firefox does treat text marked with different languages differently. See the example on Han unification#Check your browser. --cesarb 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. —HorsePunchKid→龜 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 [[Spanish language|Spanish]], etc., usually used to signify foreign names and places, you just use {{ll|Spanish}} and you've got the same thing. I made it with a bit of saved space in mind. If there's a problem with it, maybe we should go back and change the links. --ROY YOЯ 2 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)
  • Delete - don't think it's necessary. violet/riga (t) 2 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
  • substitute and delete --MarSch 2 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
  • One problem with this template is that not all languages are at articles entitled [[{{{Adjective}}} language]]. Vulgar Latin, New Latin, and Middle High German are not, for example. Uncle G 2005-07-03 06:52:49 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if used with subst: it makes editing simpler. As to the examples by Uncle G....well, those aren't exactly the most used languages/links-to-languages. Cburnett July 3, 2005 06:57 (UTC)
  • Delete I'll be happy to run a bot to do the substitution work. -- Netoholic @ July 3, 2005 14:50 (UTC)
  • Keep. --ROY YOЯ 3 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found the template useful. Grstain July 5, 2005 18:13 (UTC)
  • Delete, this isn't what we use templates for. JYolkowski // talk 6 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 09:48 (UTC)
  • Delete: doesn't save all that much typing, and makes the document hierarchy unnecessarily complicated. Nicholas 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. --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

Template:US-SupCourt-Justices

[edit]

Obsoleted by Template:Rehnquist-court. If Rehnquist resigns then I'll write up a Template:Thomas-court or somesuch and it'll be obsoleted by that. — Phil Welch 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. — Phil Welch 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. Harro5 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, Frank Murphy, the result is considerable clutter and rather overwhelms the article. I'd rather see that level of detail about the composition of each court in an article rather than a template. older≠wiser 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. --tomf688(talk) 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. — Phil Welch 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. — Phil Welch 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). --tomf688(talk) 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 Template:US-SupCourt-Justices. When that happens we can renominate. — Phil Welch 8 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)

Template:Lifespan

[edit]

Redirects to Template:Lifetime, redundant. Nothing other than the documentation on Template:lived links to it, not in use. <>Who?¿? 00:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Redirects are cheap, so there really isn't any need to delete it unless the template to which it is redirected is also up for deletion. --JB Adder | Talk 01:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, I had forgotten about that, and was thinking more in the lines of "duplicate/redundant". <>Who?¿? 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's a template being used with "subst:", obviously "Nothing else links to it", especially since User:Who removed it from Template talk:Lived 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

Template:Jul7Bom

[edit]

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, jguk 11:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Carcharoth 11:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Joe D (t) 14:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. <>Who?¿? 15:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can always prune the template once the articles finish going through the VFD process. Keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is too early to say whether this will become a useful template like the 9/11 one that it is based on. Give it a couple of weeks at least, and resubmit if template has not improved in usefulness. NoSeptemberT 18:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't 9|11. The Madrid terrrorist attack, which is comparable to this attack, doesn't even have a whole template like this. It's highly unlikely the London bombings will change the world like 9|11 did. Compared to 9|11, these bombings are just an aftershock. The pages that do end up materializing can just be linked from the original 7 July 2005 London bombings page. joturner 18:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 :). NoSeptemberT 19:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. If the potential articles are a problem, the template can always be shortened later. Sonic Mew 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. --Celestianpower 22:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we've had time to, um, what he said. I'm just impressed when someone uses affect and effect correctly. Aaron Brenneman 04:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - might turn out to be useful; we can relist it later if it doesn't. KissL 09:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Radiant_>|< 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. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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.--Revas 02:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Andreww 08:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. Or at least let's keep it out of articles when the articles it links to haven't even been written! — Trilobite (Talk) 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to prune the list now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important for better overview. --ThomasK 10:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Francs2000 CanadianCaesar 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per KissL --Carlsmith 03:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the template is something that seems useful, if the articles are kept, then this should be too. --Mysidia 12:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dejvid 13:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now. As was said above, we can always review and prune this later. --StoneColdCrazy 18:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Astrotrain 19:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep certainly for the time being. Djegan 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. why does everyone want to delete useful things?? - Omegatron 20:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Omegatron said. — OwenBlacker 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. Pacific Coast Highway 00:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:TitleDisputed

[edit]

Duplicates existing (and more descriptive) "Template:NPOV-title". -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. zen master T 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor is forgetting my complaints about its use on every page that he added it to. (see my vote and comments below). -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment {{TitleDisputed}} seems to be in much more frequent use than {{NPOV-title}} although neither is used all that much, unless they are normally substed, which seems unlikely. DES 06:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia:Requested moves, by leaving a note on the users talk page. If for some odd reason there is a revert war, then one could use one of these tags. The more useful title should be used, and then placed on the templates page, where {{TitleNPOV}} already exists btw, and redirect to the non-deleted one. It seems that zen master has been in a few 3RR situations, and can only suggest that maybe a nice note on where to find the existing templates Wikipedia:Template messages and how to propose templates would be helpful to them later. ∞Who?¿? 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{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}. zen master T 09:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. ∞Who?¿? 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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? zen master T 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly referring to Template talk:TitleDisputed (note the red link, hence no discussion), may have saved a lot of the conflicts in its history. Wikipedia talk:Template messages, to propose the template and discuss its creation and format. These two places minimum. As for disputed titles, there was the other template, which could have been used. Now we have redundant templates, and I only made the suggestion that you propose the template, before creating it to avoid Tfd. ∞Who?¿? 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. zen master T 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Radiant_>|< 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.(Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory) The vote was clearly in favor of existing titles, yet the editor who proposed the original changes added this template to several articles anyway. I complained about it on each of the talk pages. Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories#Title disputed, Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#Disputed title, Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Disputed title and Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories#Disputed title. In each case the discussion tended more towards the suitability of applying the template than to the template itself. Nonetheless, its use has been discussed at some length previously. -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it is currently composed, this template is redundant with the NPOV-title template noted by User:Netoholic in the nomination. the rest here is a comment, not a vote extension I think there is a place for a "disputed title" template that is not POV-issue-related. I can imagine legitimate title disputes that have little to do with neutrality, so there must be such issues that have arisen. Is there a template to cover such "technical" or "academic" disputes? If not, then perhaps this relatively neutrally worded template title could be co-opted for that purpose. Just a thought. Courtland 23:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete m:instruction creep. BlankVerse ∅ 14:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:20-cen

[edit]

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. -Splash 20:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 01:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete, most articles in the Wikipedia would need it, and pretty much none do; this says that this template is a bad idea. -- Titoxd 05:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{subst:20-cen}} [[List of 20th century classical composers|classical composers]]
to produce the very odd and probably unhelpful
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
Category:20th century classical composers
Category:20th century philosophers
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.
--Jerzy�t 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.
--Jerzy�t 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. --Titoxd 22:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Long NPOV

[edit]

The very subtle text differences seems like it would be something which could be added to Template:POV, rather than forking a whole new template. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Listdev (and Category:Incomplete lists)

[edit]

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Template locations, several people expressed the opinion that there may not be a point to this template, as just about any list in Wikipedia can be expanded and developed. Therefore, I'm listing it here. Radiant_>|< 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. according to Template_talk:Listdev, this template was up for deletion previously in March 2005. User:Ceyockey

Previous delete discussion is in the archive. slambo 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 List of legal terms or a hypothetical "List of Historical Novels" by their nature can't be expected to be complete, and certianly can't be proved compelete at any specific point. This tag should be reserved for soerts of list that a reader would naturally expect to be complete an even definitave, and warn when they fail of this standard. It should not be used on open-ended lists. With this limitation (which should be documeted on a proper talk page) I think the tempalte is of value I assume the category is simply of pages that havbe been tagged with the template. If so, the same remarks would apply. DES 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 SkyTeam Destinations. Dbinder 14:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many lists on Wikipedia are enumerable, but incomplete. Kaldari 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep--Striver 03:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. DES 18:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An "incomplete list" should be regarded as a list equivalent of a stub. – Kpalion (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. slambo 18:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC) -- I just remembered, the previous vote was over Template:Expand list which is now a redirect to this template. slambo 18:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very useful template. --[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 19:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --BaronLarf 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. Pcb21| Pete 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the way, there is the Dynamic list template (see Category:Dynamic lists) for the "incomplete and will never be complete lists". — Fingers-of-Pyrex 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.  BRIAN0918  23:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Useful for works in progress. Walkerma 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful template. Guettarda 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 ... {{completelist}} => "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 ({{expand list}}, 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). Courtland 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. --Alterego 01:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very useful for many articles. --Arbiteroftruth 03:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for pointing out lists that are woefully incomplete and encouraging edits. --Kzollman 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. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to even justify. (rolling eyes). Nelson Ricardo 08:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful. jni 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly. Dmn / Դմն 10:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.--Mitsukai 13:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Superm401 | Talk 19:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful. Some lists can be completed. --Locarno 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Shinobu 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sarge Baldy 23:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Kee[ ovbiously. Dunc|☺ 23:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it does serve a useful purpose. --Shawn K. Quinn 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful. For example, see its use at the article on My System, where it is used to mark a list of book editions. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Useful for many of the above reasons. ~ Dpr 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not all newbies realize they can edit wikipedia, and many lists are incomplete, thus this list is useful for at least two reasons. -JCarriker 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. MadMax 23:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. jengod 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 Super Mario RPG, but not all, yet wanted to make a list of them, he/she could make the list of whatever he/she knows and then let someone else finish it. (Whether or not a SMRPG enemy list would be suitable on Wikipedia is another story, but that's just an example.) Glenn Magus Harvey 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cburnett 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps there should be a "open-ended list" template, to prevent people from applying this one to open-ended lists? Maybe not. -- Beland 20:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can someone provide a link to the March 2005 discussion? —RaD Man (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful to label lists that could be, but are not yet, complete. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Fastfission 19:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a very useful indicator that will be greatly missed if removed. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 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--AYArktos 11:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main / Template:Seemain

[edit]

I am nominating these here for discussion in light of User:MarSch's persistent effort [3] to have them redirected to {{subarticleof}} and {{seesubarticle}}, though I do not support that action. Nominally these were created with the intent that {{main}} be placed at the top of articles and point to pages for which the present page was a subtopic, and {{seemain}} would be placed in sections to direct to those subpages. In other words, these were in principle created to delineate the kind of subarticle/superarticle relationship that {{subarticleof}} and {{seesubarticle}} could handle. See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Links. However, in practice, their usage has been broader than this since the simple code: "Main article: [[{{{1}}}]]" and "See main article: [[{{{1}}}]]" can clearly be used more generally than simple establishing a heirarchical relationship. For example, see Earth, where {{seemain}} is added to sections on climate, geology, etc to bring special attention to these topics which are not really subarticles of Earth. Also, until recently the text of these two templates was literally identical and so they were often confused, as their only difference was intended use. In a previous, though largely inconclusive TFD, MarSch used this to argue they should be replaced by the subarticle heirarchy [4]. In my opinion, rather than redirecting main and seemain to the subarticle templates, the simple message "Main article: [[{{{1}}}]]" should be perserved at {{main}} and {{seemain}} redirected to it. This would preserve the non-heirarchical nature of these useful links for highlighting prominently related content, and the template usage instructions should be updated to reflect this. The subarticle templates could still be perserved and used when heirarchical relationships do exist. See also, the related TFD on {{subarticleof}} immediately below. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:04 (UTC)

  • Keep main and redirect seemain to it. Update template instructions to reflect common usage. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:04 (UTC)
  • Keep main, worded as Main article:, and redirect seemain to it. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
  • Keep main, worded as Main article:, and redirect seemain to it. Oleg Alexandrov 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Keep main, worded as Main article:, and redirect seemain to it. --Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
  • Keep main and seemain. (SEWilco 3 July 2005 22:51 (UTC))
  • Keep main OR seemain. --Plastictv 4 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)
  • Merge both (e.g. keep one and redir the other). Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:45 (UTC)
  • Replace Seemain and Seesubarticle by Template:See details. The word "main" is used for different things, so has no meaning, except to emphasize.--Patrick 4 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)
  • Keep main, worded as Main article:, and redirect seemain to it. Fredrik | talk 4 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)
  • Keep - See {Subarticleof} below.--ghost 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 for this topic" is crystal and avoids excessive wordage like (urgh!) "For a more detailed treatment of this topic, see the subarticle ...". Rd232 5 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)
  • Keep both, or very weak second choice, keep only Seemain. No redirect, and no merge, however. BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for the very widely and generally correctly used {{seemain}}, keep for the mostly incorrectly used {{main}}, 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. --- Charles Stewart 6 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
    • Don't spend too much effort fixing {{main}} usage right now. The week after this is resolved I'll send a bot to convert obvious misapplication of {{main}}. What is left will require examination. (SEWilco 7 July 2005 15:47 (UTC))
Abuse of TFD
[edit]

The preceding is abuse of TFD, in using it for dispute resolution rather than deletion. (SEWilco 3 July 2005 22:51 (UTC))

    • If you seriously believe this to be abuse, please take it to WP:RFC or another place for discussion. This vote so far is valid. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:45 (UTC)
      • Is this vote valid? Doesn't seem that instructions have been followed, per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Instructions. (SEWilco 5 July 2005 06:32 (UTC))
        • I. Edit the template. … {{tfd|TemplateName}}
        • 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. Dragons flight 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. --MarSch 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. (SEWilco 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 WP:POINT-baiting. Grutness...wha? 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. Stbalbach 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. (SEWilco 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--MarSch 4 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)
Well, let's see whether there was no discussion any more: (SEWilco 5 July 2005 06:59 (UTC))
  • In Template_talk:Main#Missuse_of_Main:
  • 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 WP:BOLD. If the thing being redirected was abandoned anyway, the problem is then solved. If it turns out to be disputed, it should be discussed amongst the involved parties, asking for a third party opinion or taking it to RFC if necessary. The problem with template talk pages is that nobody ever reads them. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:45 (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. --MarSch 6 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
As of 5 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
[edit]
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 ghost 5 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Template:Subarticleof

[edit]

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 Template talk:Main and User talk:MarSch. This is a bad idea because it implies there is a heirarchy on Wikipedia, which there is not (it is a many2many network), leading to a lot of confusion with reader and editors. This issue arrose over the "Main article" tag, some seem to have taken the word "Main" literally, assuming there is an actual "Main" article and ergo, subordinate articles; when in fact "Main" is being used rhetorically and does not imply a heirarchy of articles, every article on Wikipedia stands on its own. Logically followed out, there would only be a single "Main" article on Wikipedia, called Universe, with all other articles subordinate to it. Wikipedia is not designed to create heirarchies and leads to a great deal of confusion otherwise. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)

  • Delete. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
  • Keep, see main / seemain discussion immediately above. Dragons flight 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 Holocaust (resources), but other than that, not many (and certainly not most of the ones currently using the template). Stbalbach 3 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
      • They may not use the template currently but there are plenty of examples in such places as Category:History by country, Category:Economies by country, and Category:Plant anatomy where a heirarchical relationship is not unreasonable. The problem is of course that their are many more examples where relationships are not heirarchical, so the subarticle structure is in itself not sufficient. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:34 (UTC)
        • I would have to disagree with those examples being heirarchal (dependent) relationships. One should be able to read History of Ireland and get a high-level overview, without having to read the "Main article" links, unless the reader wanted more detailed information. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
          • Well then I guess we disagree on when it should be used. History of Ireland is fairly clearly a subtopic of Ireland and I wouldn't object to having it labeled as such, even though History of Ireland could presumably stand on its own. Though in consideration, it does seem pretty redundant in that case. I'm fairly sure more clear-cut heirarchical cases do exist, and that it should be kept on those grounds, though if it is kept some clear agreement about when it is used would need to be reached. Dragons flight 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. Stbalbach 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 Template:Main, and I strongly disagree with that. Oleg Alexandrov 3 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

::: Willing to change my mind if template:main is not made a redirect to this one, and if this template is used only where really necessary. Oleg Alexandrov 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Unonditional delete. Oleg Alexandrov 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. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
  • Keep, probably the rules need tightening up, but it works for things like List of characters in the Harry Potter books or Nudity in The Simpsons. Kappa 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 List of characters in the Harry Potter books or Nudity in The Simpsons. If the subarticle template is expanded to include articles that are only related or in general decended from one another, such as History of Ireland as a subtopic of Ireland, then I would change my vote to delete. Wikipedia is not a heirarchal system.--Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)Delete. The more I read of the arguements and issues surrounding this template, the more I realized that it is problematic and is not good for Wikipedia. Changing my weak keep to delete.--Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
  • Keep Removing Template:main I'm all for, but this template has it's use, specially in regards to ex. pages that are split because of a need to limit the size of said article. And also to better categorize the information flow from one article to another. And Stbalbach, please don't go editing it away from pages when the vote is still being counted. Havok 4 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
  • Delete, put the article in a related category instead. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • Keep, creator of this template and its companion {{seesubarticle}}. 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 Ireland has a section on history and the article History of Ireland also exists, this can be indicated. The section should contain the main points of the article. It shouldn't be used for vague article relationships, such as in a recent version of Earth as a glorified wikilink. One of its benefits is, as Havok mentions, to make it clear where to add new information. This summarizing of articles in a section is policy. Being a subarticle of another article does not in any way imply that it doesn't stand on its own or that it shouldn't have a proper intro. Section which become too large and are split off are another example when this template should be used.--MarSch 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. --Alabamaboy 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. --MarSch 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.--Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 12:44 (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 m:Do not use subpages and says that this policy is strongly enforced. I also like what is said here m:Why I am suspicious of subpages. Obviously this debate has happened many times before. --Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
One could point to Wikipedia:Summary style as a counterargument. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 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. --Zundark 4 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
    • Response Actually subpages should never be used says Subpages are pages separated with a "/" (a forward slash) from any article or talk page. These templates may act like subpages in some ways, but they are not the same thing. A subpage can ONLY be seen as subordinate to its parent article -- the relationship is encoded in the unique article name. I can imagine an article in which each section or subsection refered to a different "main" article. DES 5 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)
  • Delete Indicates a heirarchal relationship among pages, which there shouldn't be. -- Fropuff 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 Wikipedia:How to break up a page#Articles covering subtopics. Are you seriously suggesting that some of the formerly 100kB+ articles I've been helping with should be remerged into articles so massive that many browsers won't open them? I understand the argument for continuity, but the Wikipedia isn't for us, or our indiviual style sensabilities. It's for the readers. And they are the ones who can benefit from such templates. (I didnt sign my post). (Thx, Stbalbach. Normally, I've simply inserted the person's name, rather than trying to embarass them. --ghost 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. Stbalbach 4 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
Yes. And I suggest that the RFC subject be this recent crusade. It appears that we should all reread Wikipedia:Please don't bite the newcomers.--ghost 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? Stbalbach 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 (<6months) it appears as if it's always been there. And brow beating users over an issues that obviously wasn't resolved 4 years ago doesn't feel very friendly. If it had been resolved 4 years ago, why has it been up on the main instruction pages for 6 months?
As to what I support, I support a community project that is alive and vibrant, and capable of change if change is warranted. Now, I'm not sure if this is the best template, moving forward. But if we're going to delete it, what is the alternative you offer? Merging all subarticles with their mains? That flys in the face of Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:How to break up a page, and will require major rewites of the tutorials. Maybe this is a good thing. I'll be glad to support a new and improved format when one is availible. But arbitrarily deleting these templates without offering alternatives is misguided.--ghost 5 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
We have had the well working Template:Main for ages, which was only recently replaced with the "see subarticle"/"is a subarticle of" templates without community support. Please note that summary style is not the same thing as ordering articles hierarchially. Most articles have more than one logical "parent" (for example History of Ireland is both a subtopic of Ireland and of History of Europe), many, many articles are referred to by more than one article as a "main article", and two articles can even refer to each other as "main articles". Fredrik | talk 5 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
The alternative is to do whats always been done, use the "Main article" tag and leave it up to the primary article contributors if they want to use a template or just manually code it. You cant force people to use templates or to follow a misguided system of heirarchy. If you dont think its the best template, why do you support keeping it? Stbalbach 5 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)
Because it's still up on Wikipedia:Template messages/Links. Because your alternative, {Main}, is targeted for deletion as well. Because I don't appreciate me or others being talked down too. Numerous editors were using {dablink} previously for exactly the same purpose. Is this wrong? Listen, I'm not saying the template shouldn't get deleted eventually. But, the community needs to readdress the information given to newer Users, correct it, and not dopeslap them for following the current (possibly incorrect) instructions. If a topic was "resolved" 4 years ago how, in Jimbo's name, are the newer users supposed to know?--ghost 5 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with bold links in summary, possibly merge {seesubarticle} with {see details}
I'm one of the "new users" referred to. I saw the templates on Template talk:Main and I thought "yeah, I should use those for the articles I plan to write". And so I did, in things like Stardock, Object Desktop and WindowBlinds. But I was always more keen on the {seesubarticle} template. {subarticleof} wasn't perfect. It seemed like it was meant to be put at the top of the page, but should it really be the first thing people see? And as has been said, what if there are two upwards relationships?
In fact, I now realise that there is a better way - if something is referred to in a subarticleof, then it probably deserves mentioning in the first few paragraphs, in which case it will already have a link, so merely make that link bold and you emphasise the relationship. There may then be several such bold links - for example, in WindowBlinds I bolded both Object Desktop (which is its immediate "parent" in the seesubarticle sense) and Stardock (the grandparent), as they both provide important background information. I think this solution is both compact and obvious to the reader - after all, bold links must be important!
The big question then is whether or not {see details} and {seesubarticle} should both exist. I find {see details} a little terse, but perhaps {seesubarticle} is a little long. But that is a separate question. GreenReaper 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
GreenReaper, before you go changing everything to bold to indicate something, how about discussing it with the people involved in editing the page? I clearly stated in my edit note that we would keep the subarticleof tag until the vote is done, seeing as we need more input on it. I would suggest keeping it up so that people can actually come here and vote on either keeping it or deleting it. Ok? Havok 5 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)
No, not OK. I put the {subarticleof} tag in on all of those pages, and I was the majority editor on (I believe) all but WinCustomize and Galactic Civilizations (ObjectDock is debatable), all of which I altered to bring into the hierachy. I changed my mind. Therefore I changed my edits. I have not changed anyone else's edits, as you can see by the remaining uses of the template. I do not see this as a problem. GreenReaper 5 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
I also disagree with reverting the alterations I mentioned just because you want to bring attention to this tfd. The best way of solving the problem is for individual users to decide whether or not a template should be used. I disagree with wholesale removal of it from every page that uses it, just because it is there (I do not have a problem with Havok's inital reversion of Stbalbach removal), but I have considered it and I feel that it is not the best way to indicate the relationship on the pages that I re-removed it from. GreenReaper 5 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
Further information: User_talk:Havok § Use_of_.7Bsubarticleof.7D_tag
  • Keep due to the big picture. Even if the template creates no visible display, the information that a certain relationship exists betweeen two articles can be useful in article maintenance or future usage. Decisions need to be made about the usage and behavior of the template, but it can be used by an editor to indicate a relationship to another article. (SEWilco 5 July 2005 07:13 (UTC))
  • Delete. It appears people are trying to use the 'main article' and 'subarticle' interchangably, and that doesn't make sense. When I see subarticle I think of article fragments, not expanded articles, which is really what these so-called subarticles really are. History of Ireland is an often cited (in the discussion above) and fine example of this. It is a stand-alone article about the history of Ireland, not an article fragment removed from the article Ireland. Also, normally I would only expect to see a link or other italicized text at the top of an article if there are other articles that need to be referenced that would otherwise not be within the article lead paragraphs (eg. disambiguation, or similar situations). We don't need to start linking articles like History of Ireland back to Ireland using a subarticle template. —Mike July 5, 2005 08:18 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is nor true that article can only have one parent using these templates. Subarticles are not subpages as was pointed out. Subpages can have only one parent which is encoded in their article name. Splitting of articles with a summary left behind is policy. It stands to reason that this relationship between a section(s) and an article(s) is acknowledged. Many people seem to have a problem with the specific wording of these templates or with the word subarticle. I am open to suggestions. These templates have the exact same purpose as {main} and {seemain} which are supposed to be different, but current voting indicates that they are going to be merged, because they are not distinguishable.--MarSch 5 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)
One problem is that this template has been used in places where there is not a true parent relationship, just because the "parent" had a section relating to it and so {seesubarticle} was used. In the cases I am responsible for, it was used because it does not actually say what the name implies - it says "for more details", which does not necessarily imply inclusion in the "parent" article. This is fine, but then I felt I had to use {subarticleof} on the article of, which says "this is a subarticle of X", not "this is an article which is referenced in X" or "X discusses this and similar things in less detail" or something similar.
We have been offered two templates as an equivalent-but-reversed pair when they are not that. The text of {seesubarticle} is fine, but it is misleadingly named for the text that it is, and should not imply the use of {subarticleof}, which it does. GreenReaper 5 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
  • Comment Stbalbach has been removing these templates from a lot of pages, recently quoting the no subpages policy and threatened me with:

    If you insist on reverting and implimenting your personally designed system of templates, I will take it to RFC and/or start the process of arbitration against you and your misguided, stubborn and knee-jerk actions.

    probably because I reverted him on this yesterday on my talk.--MarSch 5 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
I disagree with this action unless Stbalbach has been a contributor to those articles and MarSch has not. I do think this templates are not a great solution (that {seesubarticle} should be renamed or merged, and that probably {subarticleof} should be removed), but that does not mean I (or anyone else) should remove them where I find them, only where I've put them on myself and now decide they're not the best solution. GreenReaper 5 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. I've read all the arguments and looked at several of the uses of the template. No merge, no redirect. BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
  • Delete. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that this is somehow better than using categories. Who wants to have to maintain yet another hierarchy? If anything, maybe we should be suggesting to the developers improvements to the category functionality. —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 6, 2005 02:37 (UTC)
    • Categories are for horizontal grouping. These templates are for tracing out paths from general categories to subcategories. A little like series boxes. I would like to know how to accomplish that with categories.--MarSch 6 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Every article should be able to stand completely on its own. This is just way too hierarchical. History of Ireland is not a "sub-article" of Ireland any more than it is a "sub-article" of History of Western Europe; this is what categories are for, which in their wisdom can go inside and outside of each other, in all relevant directions.--Pharos 6 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
  • Delete, "subarticles" (in the loose sense rather than the technical sense) should provide an adequate introductory paragraph that contains the link this template is supposed to provide -- Linking to the main article with "Ireland is an island in north-western Europe..." is more useful than "This is a subarticle of Ireland." Joe D (t) 7 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
Other wording
[edit]

Since the word subarticle seems to cause problems and we are discussing this here. What about two other templates

  • {details}: For more details on this topic, see the article {1}.
  • {background}: For more background on this topic, see the article {1}.--MarSch 5 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)
I've got no problem with these, and could support deleting {subarticleof} if implemented. But I'd like to hear from the rest of the community before moving forward. Enough people are entrenched in their views, that we need to give them room to air those views.--ghost 5 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
  • Object. Same concept, same idea: heirarchal relationships. It's not the wording that is offensive it is the idea. It is inherintly POV to tag one article as "The background", as someone else said, History of Ireland, there are multiple choices, Ireland and History of Europe (and probably others), Most articles would have the same situation due to the nature of Wikipedia being a non-heirarchal network of links. Your going against the grain by trying to create heirarchy out of a non-heirarchal network, it is fraught with problems. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
Ok, then what's the middle ground here? Is there one? Again, if you yank {subarticleof}, et al., people are just going to find a way around it by using things like {dablink}. You mentioned using {Main}, but that's up for deletion too. I honestly want to understand what your alternative is. And if it works, great, I'll support it. But it appears you don't have one, and if so you need to consider the possibility that the decision made 4 years ago is no longer relavant.--ghost 5 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
The alternative is to follow the style and guideline rules. There is no reason for these pointers at the top of the page if you write a proper opening lead section. Its all laid out in the guidelines have you read them? Every article stands on its own and adhears to the same style guidelines. The problem is poorly written and designed articles need these templates to make up for people who are not following the style rules. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)
Ah, that explains alot. Wikipedia does not have style "rules". It has a style "guide". This is the difference between a Suggestion based on Wisdom, and Dogma. For reference, yes I have read the Wikipedia:Style guide, as well as the CMoS. So before we go making further assumptions (ass-u-me) about editors, I'd like to point out that the Style guide offers the caveat that, in the end it is a "guide". That the editors should feel empowered to improve the product in a manner that they collectively agree is better. If they feel some type of limited heirarchy is appropriate to their group of subjects, who are we to take that decision out of their hands? This is the core of why I feel that whatever we work out should empower the editors, not constrain them to any group's preconceived notions.--ghost 6 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
  • I think such a notice would be very useful. The writer of some article can often point out one (or more) articles which could serve as background reading, and it would be good to highlight them instead of having the reader find them among hundreds of links. The only problem for me is that I would prefer it to be written out in full instead of using a template. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
I like the {details} wording. I would like to note however that this notice should not be used liberally. In many cases the articles for the background are clear from the context. For example, if you say:
A topological manifold is a manifold such that...
anybody will understand where to look for background information. Oleg Alexandrov 6 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)
And I agree with Jitse about the note being in full. Context matters. Can't just slap templates on top of any article menioning background. Then that might indeed smell as some kind of hierarchy, which would be undesirable. Oleg Alexandrov 6 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename. I don't mind what the wording is, but there absolutely should be some kind of template for sub-articles (not subpages seperated with a /) for one reason: for an article to be featured it can't be too long, and if there's no sub-article templates, people won't split articles into subs and therefore won't be eligible for FA. I came across this problem with Dream Theater, the History section was massive and when I put it up for peer review, I was told the History should be moved to its own article and summarised within the Dream Theater article. That's a great way to do it, but if you don't have a "main article: Dream Theater" at the top, it defeats the purpose. plattopustalk July 7, 2005 13:19 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not every "article stands on its own" in some sense, there are certainly articles which detailed parts of a larger whole, which are often appropriate for such a template. I don't think such templates imply a simple hierarchical relationship -- simply indicating an article which serves as a good "parent" to another does not mean the other necessarily must be subordinate. I don't see any reason to remove this option in particular. --Fastfission 8 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let the philosophers theorize about the subliminal hierarchael message. I find it to be nothing more than an annoyance. It restricts editors from tweeking and modifying the link inside. This kind of restriction has no place in Wikipedia. I feel that a bold link at the top of the subarticle should suffice.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 8 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

As of 5 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
[edit]
Keep. = 5 Delete. = 12 Modify. = 1
Courtesy of you friendly neighborhood ghost 5 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)
TfD Instructions followed?
[edit]

In the preceding TfD, the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Instructions were not followed. I lack information as to whether they were followed for this related inquiry but that should be examined. (SEWilco 8 July 2005 18:26 (UTC))

I made the TfD. How were the instructions not followed? Stbalbach 8 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
Maybe SEWilco meant that you didn't leave a message on the creator's talk page telling him/her that their template was listed for deletion? I suppose we must wait for eir to leave a message here before we know for certain. -Frazzydee|✍ 8 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
It was my first TfD. Will my newbiew mistake invalidate the votes? I would be happy to personally write each and every voter to let them know its been invalidated if SEWilco would like a revote. Stbalbach 8 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
  • (I count 14 deletes, 8 keeps; that is a majority for deletion, but not a consensus. Template is kept for now, but could probably use some heavy editing) Radiant_>|< 12:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Major programming languages small

[edit]

Lists a few dozen arbitrarily selected languages mainly from Category:Major programming languages and Category:Historical programming languages. That's too many languages for this to be actually useful. Also the addition of historical and academic languages is confusing. The template's talk page is overflowing with people speculating if this or that language should be added or removed, so there's not even a consensus on the content. The template was created before the programming languages were exhaustively categorized. Also for the reasons given at WP:CLS#Article_series_boxes. --ZeroOne 3 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

  • Delete, per ZeroOne. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
  • Keep. The 'speculation' on the language inclusion criteria---which, contrary to the above statement, has actually reached a fairly good consensus at this point---is quite well-informed, as will be seen by any professional reading the discussion thoroughly, IMNSHO. (POV note: I myself have taken part in the discussion from time to time.) I'd argue that the template gives the reader a good overview of the major historical, academic, and industrial/production languages (the latter obviously being subject to change over time). --Wernher 3 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a good consensus on what languages should be on it, and has been surprisingly little debate in my opinion. Your complaints are directed mostly at short-lived discussion from long ago. The template is intended to be a navigational aid for exploring some of the most important topics in this area without being too imposing, and I think it serves that purpose quite well. Deco 3 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is useful for the uninformed lay reader to have some sense of the vast scope of programming languages in use. Julyo 4 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've used it and find it useful (though I'm not a lay person as Julyo labels users of it to be :) Cburnett July 4, 2005 02:56 (UTC)
  • Keep but MERGE with Template:Major programming languages, of which it is a fork. Do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • Keep, I would support a merge if the small layout were used, as this makes far better use of space and is easier to scan. GreenReaper 5 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
  • Keep, because of what GreenReaper said above. -- Titoxd 07:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Do not merge. It's quite useful as it is. It covers most major modern and historically important programming languages. If anything the large one that is suggested as a merge candidate has a few irrelevent entries. SNOBOL? Eiffel? Not exactly major. Icon? Never heard of it and it's linked the wrong "Icon" entry. If anything replace the other one with this one.-- BKellihan 13:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It's a handy link box and fairly unobtrusive at the bottom of the page -- [User:DavW|DavW]]
  • Conditional keep I think it's useful in theory, but I also agree that it's way too large. I say we keep it if we all agree to cut down the number of programming languages to fifteen, tops.

Template:Template sandbox (and others)

[edit]

Note that this nomination is for Template:Template sandbox, Template:X1, Template:X2, Template:X3, and Template:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading). You may vote for the deletion of only one of these templates, if you so wish

The first four templates are "template sandboxes", which are the same as regular sandboxes, except they're in the template namespace. The last template is for the heading. If you vote to delete the template sandboxes, then it would only be logical for you to want to delete the heading. I see little purpose in this specialized sandbox. This will only increase the amount of work we have to do in order to keep the sandboxes clean. We already have 6 of them not including these 5.

Besides, there really isn't anything special about the template namespace. If you want to test something to do with the {{double braces feature}}, then you can just use {{Wikipedia:Sandbox}}. This isn't any harder than typing {{Template sandbox}}. Besides that, there are no advantages to having a sandbox in the template namespace. -Frazzydee|✍ 3 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

  • Keep at least one of them. Coincidentally, I just found and used Template:Template sandbox earlier tonight. (I specifically searched for "Template sandbox," which I assumed existed.) I wanted to test a {{{1}}}-related modification to a template before altering the real thing, and this allowed me to do it. (I then previewed another page with {{Template sandbox|parameter}} inserted, and was able to verify that it functioned properly.) Had I attempted this with one of the other sandboxes (which receive considerably more traffic), there's an excellent chance that the test template would've been deleted too quickly. —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)
  • Keep Template:Template sandbox—and publicize this template more so people don't regularly create test templates in the template namespace. Rename Template:X1, Template:X2, Template:X3—give them more meaningful names. Delete Template:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading)—this template defeats the usability of Template:Template sandbox BlankVerse ∅ 3 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
  • Keep the X templates, delete the others. The X templates save some keystrokes and some people won't know how to transclude non-templates or assume it is impossible or whatever. The temnplate sandbox serves the purpose of being a sandbox for testing out templates. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for it to be in the template namespace. And neither is there for its heading template which is named distastefully badly. If you don't want people to interfere with your experiments you should create your own sandboxes as subpages of your userpage. --MarSch 3 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
  • Keep the X templates (possibly renamed, something like "test1", "test2", etc. maybe), and move the sandbox instruction information into the Wikipedia namespace. There does not seem to be any use for having the template sandbox instructions actually be in a template. It is the X templates that people are really intended to play with as templates. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I think we've discussed the various sandboxes in the many VfD forums already: they are here as visual testing centers. They are especialy useful for newbies who are still getting the hang of Wikipedia. To delete them would be losing a vital resource for Wikipedia. --JB Adder | Talk July 9, 2005 05:54 (UTC)

Template:Sailing ship elements

[edit]

Template being used as a category - duplicates Category:Sailboat anatomy, for one. Delete. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

  • Delete the template. Merge and redirect all the stubby ship elements articles into one single comprehensive article on ship anatomy. Delete Category:Sailboat anatomy. BlankVerse ∅ 3 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)
    • I was contacted and asked to reconsider my vote. My opinion is still that there are a couple of large articles, and a bunch of stubs that show little chance of growing much larger and should be merged into a more comprehensive article. Think of the readers! Most people visiting the Wikipedia will probably not know very much about the various parts of a ship and forcing them to look at a bunch of little stubs instead of a larger article that explains everything in context is only going to frustrate the reader. Keep the larger deck and anchor articles, but also add summaries into the comprehensive article. BlankVerse ∅ 04:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much more convenient than the category. Kappa 3 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)
  • Delete per Blankverse, and I also agree with his other recommendations. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 11:56 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Merging is not really practical for all of the elements since deck, anchor, hull and rudder are already modestly sizable articles. One could create a main ship anatomy article and then break out elements as they get large, but that largely defeats the purpose. One could probably do this with a category just as well, though it would need to be something like "Boat anatomy" rather than "Sailboat anatomy". Dragons flight July 3, 2005 12:18 (UTC)
  • comment deck, anchor are definately too large to merge, otherwise I would have supported that. I think that a main article on boat anatomy from which these articles are {subarticle}s would work quite well. --MarSch 3 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's a good point. I would support merging of all of these articles that are at the level of a stub or dicdef and that do not seem particularly expandable. Nevertheless, I don't really see the point of this template (it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical) and would prefer it categorified. Radiant_>|< 19:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I setup/started this template and make the following comments. Much more convenient than a category. Will significantly expand as writers/authors add more articles related to anatomy of sailing ships. Extremely easy for a reader/researcher to go from article to article etc. If this template is deleted then the same logic/ruling must also apply to numerous other templates (and lists) present on wikipedia which would have a very negative effect on ease of navigation through very closely related articles. User:Boatman July 4 2005
  • Delete and follow recommendations by BlankVerse. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/TOCright

[edit]

See the page above - the discussion was forked out since it was too long.

Template:Queen

[edit]

Large and unsightly; could easily be converted to categories. — Dan | Talk 6 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

  • Keep - allows readers to see Queen topics at a glance. - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
  • Keep, but pretty it up. --tomf688(talk) July 7, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • Delete, ugly. Phoenix2 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
  • Keep, after all, this template follows almost the exact formula of the Led Zeppelin one, and that one still exists. And after all, The Who and many many other bands have templates here, so why not Queen, one of the most popular bands in the world? CinnamonCinder 8 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  • Keep, Templates like these are helpful for any artists with a large body of work. --Cholmes75 8 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ugly, larger than some Queen articles. Duplicates the functionality of Category:Queen, except less thoroughly. (Same applies to {{LedZeppelin}}. I agree that there's a lot of precedent for this kind of template; I just don't agree that the precendent is right or useful.) --Quuxplusone 8 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
  • Keep. A little ugly, but is still effective and helpful.
  • Keep. It takes a long time to remove it from a bunch of articles.

Template:Wiktionarypar2 & Template:Wiktionarypar3

[edit]

The existing {{Wiktionarypar}} can be used multiple times on a page (stacked), plus each Wiktionary page has (should have) "see also" links to help readers find alternate capitalizations. Linking to Wiktionary just got a lot more complex now that they are fully case-sensitive, but these aren't the solution. -- Netoholic @ 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • The three votes below apply to Wiktionarypar2, and were invalidly removed by Netoholic. Radiant_>|< 15:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • These votes were placed when only Wiktionarypar2 was on the list, and the current nomination reason was not present. These voters may wish to reveiw and alter or reconffirm their votes. DES
  • Keep: what's wrong with it? Useful to have two links to wiktionary. Josh Parris ✉ 05:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sounds useful. What's up with this, is it a partial nomination or something? I doubt Josh is putting it here to have it kept? Radiant_>|< 07:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
01:56, 12 July 2005 User:Netoholic ({{tfd}})
  • Comment These templates are not documented (at least not on their respective talk pages, which don't exist), and it is not clear to me how they are intended to be used. If they wind up being kept, they should be properly documented. DES 15:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These were created basically as a knee-jerk response to the case-sensitivity problem. Adding two extra templates doesn't solve the basic issue. I have a plan posted on Template talk:Wiktionary. We'll never need more than two templates (Wiktionary & Wiktionarypar) for this function, and we can modify the existing ones during the transition. -- Netoholic @ 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That doens't excuse the arbitrary removal of previous votes, however. It is perfectly common practise, when renominating to either include the previous discussion, particularly if there was no consensus, or to provide a link to it where there was consensus. -Splash 15:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Having looked into this further, there seems good reason to have templates that link to multiple wiktionary entries, and the proposed deletion seems premature at best. However, they should be documented. DES 16:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At that point, the nomination was withdrawn [5].

Template:Buffy-character

[edit]

Unused template, seems to be a template layout for creating new Buffy chars. Only one article links to it Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffy. Should be deleted, if users want to use it, they should userfy, before its deletion. This is not what templates are intended for. <>Who?¿? 9 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

Ummm, Projectify, assumming they actually use it, it should be a subpage of WikiProject Buffy, rather than User or Template space. Reminds me of another "template" appropriately living in Wikipedia space. Dragons flight 00:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I do not object to Dragons flights suggestion. <>Who?¿? 00:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summary

[edit]

Patronising and aggressive. The info is already provided in Template:Welcome in a less agressive manner. ~~~~ 08:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ~~~~ 08:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it gets revised to remove the sarcasm. Joe D (t) 12:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Duplicates existing information. In its current form it should be deleted, unless a good reason is stated why the information should be duplicated. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Welcome does not explicitly mention edit summaries, unless you follow links. This should maybe be improved, but i don't find it highly hostile as it stands. A focused reminder of the importance of filling in the edit summary seems a good idea to me. DES 14:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reword Welcoming templates as needed, but no need for this one. Radiant_>|< 15:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not especially hostile, and useful as a reminder to fill in edit summaries. Not redundant with welcome because many established users neglect to provide edit summaries, and need the error of their ways pointed out to them. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a simply-worded way to explain to Wiki-noobs that they should fill out the Edit summary. There probably should be a second version for Wikipedia old-timers who still regularly do not fill out the edit summary. BlankVerse ∅ 04:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Trilobite. Useful as a reminder to editors who still don't use the edit summary box. The longer the welcome message is, the less likely newbies will read it! It's not particulalry hostile, but a slight rewrite with more friendly language. The JPS 13:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The person who submitted this template for deletion almost never provides edit summary. One concludes that the {welcome} template does not make it clear enough that edit summaries are required. Oleg Alexandrov 22:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither patronising nor aggressive, in my opinion. More specific than Template:Welcome and hence useful for those that do not read all the links in Template:Welcome and remember all they have read. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace: Although the template does serve a purpose, I do agree with the original nominator that it has a kind of "grab you by the hairs and point your face to it, dumbass"-sarcasm. I therefore rewrote and restructured the template and propose to replace it with this. --IByte 15:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the replacement. It is hugely long. I think the original template is just fine, as long as one uses it very carefully. Oleg Alexandrov 20:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's quite good for first-time editors, by pointing out what the edit summary box looks like, but once they go beyond that, you'd have to use {{edit-summary}} --JB Adder | Talk 01:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:See details

[edit]
  • Delete. Rebundant with Template:Seemain. 500LL 13:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect Seemain. This would be a good replacement for {{Seemain}}. This name emphasizes that the referenced article contains details about a topic, without implying it is more "main" than the current article. Creator of Seemain: (SEWilco 16:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Take discussion elsewhere This little discussion is putting a ugly note (or more) on every article that uses this template. It's one way of quickly getting pages to use another one I guess. Oh make my vote a Keep - SimonLyall 20:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. ffs. this is putting a note in every article that is using it, at least two of which i watch or authored. i have no problem with a more distinct process, but redirects are important. that discussion should not be happening here. Avriette 21:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although I'm going to have to make sure the seemain templates I put everywhere will work under the new template. I prefer seemain but most don't. Falphin 23:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 500LL. I can see no need for these templates that is not served fine by the existing ones. -Splash 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
since seemain is now redirected to see details, and see details is up for deletion, which would you suggest I use for cannabis cultivation and RNEP? Avriette 02:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
{{for|details|Hydroponics}}. - Nabla 08:09:23, 2005-07-12 (UTC)


Template:Seesubarticle

[edit]


[edit]

"Find more about <foo> by searching in our sister projects" - plus a list of seven of them. The problem is that you can search for most any topic in our sister projects, and that it isn't necessarily helpful. It would make more sense to use the specific templates to link to, e.g., a specific article in WikiQuote or WikiNews - or to modify our standard skin by including links to sisterprojects just as we include links to other language wikis. Radiant_>|< 18:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep obviously. This one template replaces multiple ones in a clean, and positive way. It links to Special:Search which has a cool feature of forwarding the user directly to an article, if one exists at that exact name (which is the case at most of our sister projects). Otherwise, standard search results are shown. Take a look at what an improvement this makes. Sure, if we had some mechanism for these to show up like inter-language links do, that would be nice. Until then, this is better than using 3, 4, 5, or more separate sister project boxes. -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep. It's clear this is useful and an improvement for major articles like India, where (almost) all links yield something meaningful. It's equally clear this template is not useful and likely misleading for smaller articles. Apply with care. PS. I thought Wikispecies was dead, or just about... For sure, there's nothing relevant on Wikispecies for "India". JRM · Talk 18:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Wikispecies does yield results on some articles, though not greatly, which is why it's the last link - included for completeness only. Be happy to talk about improvements on Template talk:Sisterlinks. The text description of each site should help readers not pick something that doesn't apply. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't something the template itself can improve on; it's simply a question of whether enough links do something useful. Concrete example: nobody would add this template to, say, Oolong (rabbit), because there's no conceivable search term that would yield something meaningful for even one sister project. Even articles like Tyrannosaurus rex (which has a link to Commons) are not going to be improved by auto-linking to searches for it on Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikiquote or Wiktionary (Wikinews might conceivably have some interesting story on T-rex fossils, but here links to specific articles would be more interesting than simple searches). As I said: as long as the intent is not to slap this template on everything with a sister project link, it can be useful in cases. JRM · Talk 19:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, my intent would be to use it where at least four or five of the seven links give something useful - to reduce the clutter of individual boxes. No, it's never going to replace the individual ones. Hope you'll change to "keep", so we can at least see it evolve. -- Netoholic @ 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      In general I prefer just adding observations others can use to base their decision on... But since I've just about argued that the template is useful when judiciously applied, I can agree with classifying it as a vote. JRM · Talk 19:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are very few articles that I've seen that have, or even need, more than three of the sister project templates. On the other hand, when they do have four or more sister project templates, things can look very cluttered. This template is a good way to reduce that clutter. I do have one worry about it, however. I have a feeling that once this template is publicized at Wikipedia:Sister_projects, that too many editors will be lazy and start sticking the template on every Wikipedia article they edit even when those articles only have two or three relevant connections to other Sister Projects. If this template is kept, we should probably revisit it in roughly six months and look at how it is being used, and misused. BlankVerse ∅ 03:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify – It's neat in the current form BUT many projects may be irrelevant to a particular article. Instead of the current all inclusive form, I suggest it be modified like the babel template which allows a neat rendering of multiple language links. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until babel-like. For general articles (e.g., computer) that would have a bunch of these anyway, I'd rather see one box like this template than 7 boxes repeating basically the same thing with a different link and icon. I like the idea of dropping this in favor of a babel-like deal. Cburnett 21:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but refine. I can see where it has some good features and don't think it should be deleted at present.
  • Rewrite or delete. This one's several times worse than Template:Uncyclopedia in that it sends the user off in several semi-random directions, at least one or more of which is likely to be a dead-end with no specifically-related entries at all on any one given topic. If it linked only to the projects with actual, specific topic-related info *and no others* it could be useful, but is there any straightforward way to do that as a template instead of specifically listing the individual links inline? --carlb 00:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This provides too random an access to the sisterprojects. A better solution would be to have a type of "template shelf" into which could be slotted "sisterproject cartridges" as needed. The linkages to sisterprojects should be curated and manually applied to ensure high quality in the linkages. Courtland 05:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-Philippines

[edit]

Delete: Overly specific; redundant Superm401 | Talk 15:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sofixit

[edit]

Though used in somewhere between fifty and a hundred pages so fix it is somewhat pointless since it tells a person to fix their suggestion themselves which negates the point of them making the suggestion in the first place, also anyone who believes that a {{sofixit}} is warranted could deal with the issue themselves in the same amount of time or less since the {{sofixit}} tag was created for smaller issues that are easy to fix anyway. Jtkiefer 04:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

didn't notice the previous tfd, in that case I withdraw my vote. When I get the chance I'll see if I can make the tag look a little more organized. guess I'll have to put a sofixit tag on my own usertalk page. Jtkiefer 05:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and TfD is redundant. (SEWilco 05:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. This is a semi-polite way of telling an editor that you think that they are a clueless noob. 2) Very weak 2nd choice: Iff it is kept, I think that it needs to be rewritten to be made more polite. BlankVerse ∅ 07:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've just found this, and it's great! Josh Parris ✉ 07:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's useful to point out even to old users that it's better to fix a problem than to complain about it. I'm not opposed to rewording it. Radiant_>|< 08:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful for newbies who don't understand how Wikis are meant to work, and saves time in answering questions from new users. Also, provides a more formalised and less impolite manner of telling someone to "do it yourself". --NicholasTurnbull 12:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,Dejvid 13:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Radiant! and others above. DES 22:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As for the number of pages used, the template is a subst'ed template so its use is really much greater than 50-100. JYolkowski // talk 23:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm loving it. JFW | T@lk 10:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A person may have a valid suggestion for what needs doing, but lack the time or the English language skills to implement it. Overuse of this template may discourage people from making useful suggestions. 80.229.160.150 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fix it: Rename and Reword as appropriate to avoid biting n00b$ This template is useful, but, to me at least, "so fix it" and "do it yourself" sound equally snide. Speaking from experience, when someone used this template as a response to something I said, I thought they were incredibly rude, not realizing at the time that it was a canned message. Call it maybe something like Template:YCH for "You can help!" -Tomer TALK 07:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. No need to rename it: one should use {{subst:sofixit}} anyway, which means newbies won't be able to see what the template is called and feel offended by it. --MarkSweep 02:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've reviewed the text again, and see that it's been significantly "friendlified" since I got thwapped with it... I've modified the template again, to make it less formal (and hopefully, thereby, more "friendly"). That said, I still think it should be renamed, since templates aren't used exclusively by users sufficiently experienced to understand how {{subst|}} works. Tomer TALK 02:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are many cases when you might suggest a complex change but feel that you are not the person to do it. To reply to a serious, thought-out suggestion by slapping on this canned answer (which is how I encountered it) is very impolite, to say the least. PRiis 17:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for historic reasons, if nothing else! ;-) Kim Bruning 18:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nonsense

[edit]

Redundant with more flexible use of {{db|reason}}. We don't need a separate template for each WP:CSD reason. True patent nonsense is (theoretically) obvious to everyone. -- Netoholic @ 13:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the alternative of writing it out or even more than absolutely neccesary. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Europe

[edit]

12 keep/5 delete/1 replace

Redundant with Category:European countries. The same appearance objections as with Template:UNmembers below. The chief result of this template is an interminable poll over the question of whether Turkey, Armenia, and Kazakhstan are European. (Kazakhstan may never be settled.) m:Polls are evil, but this is more evil than most; the various nationalists have been roused to block voting. Let us be done with it. Septentrionalis 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a test vote. The other continents can be discussed if this vote is delete and the grounds are not specifically European. Septentrionalis

  • Keep Alinor 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) correction of the introduction - the Turkey question is closed since a long time ago. 10 other states/issues are also closed - conclusion reached. There remain only 3 to close. Pools may be unwiki, but the template is usefull on its own and it should not be deleted becouse of a minor issue with 2 remaining unsettled states (and the Flag). The place for the pool/discussion is also not on the template-page (preferable places: pages for each disputable country, and also here), but is already there for a long time. A category or a list (as in the main Europe article) is not the same as a template - the template is visualizing in a much more compact way the whole information and it has other advantages. To summurize: 'keep' the template; eventualy 'move' the discussion and/or the pool; eventualy 'cancel' the pool.[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly OK template needed in some places. Fear�IREANN\(caint) 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because concept is reasonable whether it lists all members or only identifies membership. Whether implemented as a template or category, membership indicator is OK. And I won't vote to delete as a "test" of some sort when that should be resolved through other process than deletion through a backwater vote. (SEWilco 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, type-boxes are useful. James F. (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Useful. Nightstallion 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is useful --*drew 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Templates and categories are not at war. "There can be only one!" is not a truism. Unfocused 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is relevant and useful. --Valentinian 22:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Are we going to delete all similar boxes now? �Cantus…☎ 11:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The template is useful, since we don't have to go to another page (like the Category) to "jump" from a country to another. --BLOGuil 18:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its difficult enough to find countries on the english wikipedia - we need all the help we can. Handle the issues about which country is in Europe and which isn't in a sensitive way but don't comprimise on useability of the wikipedia by deleting a navigation template. af:Gebruiker:Laurens 15:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This and similar templates are very useful. Going via a Category is a loss of time. A template is much quicker when you want to quickly compare several countries from the same continent/group. Luis rib 19:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanupcsh

[edit]

Topic-specific cleanup messages are not needed. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Since this is part of a wiki project, it might actually serve a purpose since there are specific guidelines for those articles. However not putting these articles into a category seems to be self defeating in getting someone to find and fix them. If that project is producing high quality articles, maybe it should be expanded to all state highways and this template expanded, and renamed, so it is less specific. Vegaswikian 19:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but possibly get a new template "this article is related to that wikiproject" (but it would require rewording and renaming so I'm voting del on this one). Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is part of a WikiProject, and I have used it in the past to mark articles that really need some help. --Rschen7754
  • Keep. This is part of the ongoing CA highway wikiproject. A full state highway project for all states is too daunting at this time.Gateman1997
  • Keep. It's easier for the project people [us] to see which project-related articles need cleanup by looking at the 'what links here' as as well as the reasons stated by Gateman1997 and Rschen7754. atanamir 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User la

[edit]

I didn't know there were any native speakers of Latin since about 500 years ago? User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Not natively, that's not possible. They might be la-3, perhaps. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impossible. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reformat Haha... sorry... I updated this this morning and assumed that "naturaliter" implied fluency in written and spoken Latin, since my fluency in German is from years living in Germany, but again I'm not a "Muttersprache" in the strict sense, moving there as a teenager. Yet since vulgar Latin has degenerated into the Romance languages, and I am not fluent in vulgar Latin, I'll change it without complaint!

And just a correction, there have been no native speakers of the Latin we know and write in for probably over 1000 years. Evidence suggests the language was deteriorating even in the second century AD! (And with the Germanic invasions and such, from the 6th to 11th centuries it split into French, Italian, etc.) Amicuspublilius 04:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete post haste; the relevant category was CFD'ed a couple of weeks ago, no point in repeating the debate. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being able to use it like a native speaker is quite possibile, though difficult. Almafeta 12:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia:Babel says to use la "if you're a native speaker or have a grasp of the language comparable to a native speaker", which seems possible to achieve. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Babel seems to be a bit inconsistent. The list gives levels 1, 2, 3 and native but the example given immediately below makes reference to a level 4. {{User en-4}} states "This user speaks English at a near-native level." which would seem to cover the "comparable to a native speaker" sentence currently mentioned in the native level. --TheParanoidOne 18:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily. Someone whose understanding of the language is NEAR that of a native speaker may know the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary perfectly but may not necessarily get the full meaning of various idioms and cultural references, while a native speaker or someone whose understanding of the languages is that of a native speaker would. Kurt Weber 19:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jitse Niesen is right...it doesn't require that someone be a native speaker, just that he have an understanding of the language equivalent to that of a native speaker. Kurt Weber 18:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Latin is not a dead language. It is spoken in Homilies, and official documents of the Roman Catholic Church. As the official language of the Vatican, a city and independent state - it is possible to be a native speaker of Latin (OK, I can your point, but I still think it should be kept). Oliver Keenan 21:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why bother deleting it? I think that deleting any part of Wikipedia that's obviously "symmetric" will only lead to its re-creation. {{User en}} exists, so {{User la}} should too. If nobody uses it, it will remain unused. But if it's deleted, somebody will come along next week and say, "Aha! {{User la}} doesn't exist yet! I'd better create it," and we'll repeat this whole process. --Quuxplusone 17:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservamus hunc Tomer TALK 06:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment--one we should probably try to get rid of is "Native Speaker of Gothic" ~ Dpr 05:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Utterly harmless. If we accept "native equivalent" for other languages, why not for this one also? There are people in this world who use Latin as a working language; what a boon it would be to us if Wikipedia caught on in .va.--Pharos 06:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I certainly have a near-fluency in the language from teaching and reading in it for so long.User:CaesarGJ
  • Keep Its possible Jobe6 06:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep According to babel, also nearly-native. And it is the official language of Vatican City.Poli (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Template:Magic-spoiler

[edit]

Far too specific. We already have Template:Spoiler and even better Template:Solution. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Specific, yes, but I think it feels a meaningful niche. {{spoiler}} clearly isn't appropriate since magic tricks don't really have "plot and/or ending details". {{solution}} is a lot closer, but "Warning: Solution details follow" is really not a strong or specific enough warning to my taste. I would expect to see something like {{solution}} before the answer to a math problem or a riddle, i.e. the kind of problems that one could figure out by logical deduction. In most cases, magic tricks simply can't be figured out merely from a description of their appearance. As such, I favor the stronger warning for magic secrets. Dragons flight 07:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think one more spoiler template is going to kill us, and there is a good case for a difference in phrasing. Note that people are currently getting quite excited about the fact that Wikipedia reveals the secrets to magic tricks. I recently added this template to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. I wonder how many other spoiler templates exist that are not listed there. Bovlb 07:57:41, 2005-07-16 (UTC) rephrased Bovlb 17:43:25, 2005-07-16 (UTC)
  • Keep at least until the furor that Bovlb mentions dies down. (See Talk:Out of This World (card trick).) —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a very specific and special kind of spoiler, not like the more literary uses for {{spoiler}} and most of the other spoiler templates. A specific warning is very useflu in this case. DES 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with {{spoiler-about}} or {{spoiler-other}} as appropriate. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    Both of those still reference "plot and/or ending details", which is a poor fit for magic secrets, in my opinion. Dragons flight 08:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neither of the cited alternatives has applicable language. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree, the wording in the suggested alternatives seems quite inapplicable --Johnjosephbachir 18:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike Template:spoiler (which is used for novels and movies) and Template:Solution (which is used for common mathematical problems), this spoiler warning actualy goes "behind-the-scenes" with a magic trick; thus, adding this to a magic trick article (eg sleight-of-hand) will tell the reader to steer from it if they do not want to destroy the 'magic' of the illusion. To say plot details follow or solution follows really are out-of-place in an article. --JB Adder | Talk 04:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note There is a discussion now going on at Template talk:Magic-spoiler about whether this template (assuming it is kept, as now seems likely to me) should retain its current image or be just a line of text. Anyone intersted in this matter, please join that discussion, so that a proper consensus can form. So far exactly two people have expressed views, one for and one against the image. DES 18:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep None of the proposed alternatives seem to appropriately work. -- Krash 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons everybody else has cited. — The Storm Surfer 17:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons. --U.U. 08:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was my first time seeing the template (on billet reading) and it was what I expected. Magic secrets are somewhere between plot spoilers and solutions; the secret is only a "solution" for those who were exclusively looking at it as an unsolved puzzle to begin with. I think the wording makes sense. --Closeapple 10:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a native speaker indicates that you have grown up in a scoiety speaking Latin, which is obviously impossible and hence misleading.
    • Err, this is a vote about magic, not latin. I suggest this vote is misplaced. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the extra language is needed in this case. The alternatives are too general.--Muchosucko 17:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. it's specific but it's useful and it is used in a number of articles. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 07:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft m:instruction creep. BlankVerse ∅ 14:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No other spoiler warning is really appropriate for the type of article this spoiler warning would be used for. I see no rational whatsoever for deleting this template.
  • Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it, either, and I think it should be kept as it seems apt and appropriate. 30 July 2005
  • 'Keep'. It is appropriate enough and keeps people who dont want to find out the secret away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.47.17 (talk • contribs) (who also blanked this discussion)

Template:MergeVfD

[edit]

Seems a little too specific, and is currently unused. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I didn't know this existed. Having a link to the VfD discussion might quite possibly be useful so that the merging editor can see what particular things people thought. However, nearly all merge votes on VfD are pretty non-specific in what they mean, so there would not be much to gain. Seeing as a link to the VfD ought to be on the talk page and a merging editor ought to read the talk page, that ought to be enough...-Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete I agree with Splash. If this were listed on the templates page, it would probably be used more often. I think it is useful to be able to easily access the Vfd discussion, but that can always be annotated on the talk page. ∞Who?¿? 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, change vote, as I fealt it was useful, if other editors are ready to accept it's usage, than it should be kept. It should be added to Template messages after this Tfd. ∞Who?¿? 23:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one, but reword and relayout to match {{merge}}, and advertise its usage. This is useful because VFD closing admins often don't perform a merge for lack of time, and a regular tl:merge is sometimes removed swiftly by people unaware of the VFD. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Radient. DES 04:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Advertise. Tomer TALK 06:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know of two articles that could use it right now. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I suppose there are some articles where you can use it, however I'm not sure if this can--or moreover will--be used in place of {{merge}}. --JB Adder | Talk 08:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 16 July PM to 25 July AM — 8 1/2 days

Template:Advert

[edit]

Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. If you voted before, please consider if you wish to change your vote now that the template has changed. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • The following votes and comments were made before the template was reworded. The votes are, of course, still valid, but the comments may no longer be appropriate to the reworded version.

Redundant with more flexible use of {{db|reason}}. We don't need a separate template for each WP:CSD reason. I'm not even sure what "blatant advertising" means, and I see this could be misused. Spamming porn links is vandalism (so already covered), but advertising your band still means a trip to WP:VFD. -- Netoholic @ 13:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would prefer to replace this with a cleanup template stating something like "This article reads like an advertisement, which is inappropriate. You can improve Wikipedia by rewording it to be descriptive and NPOV". Radiant_>|< 13:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Quite a few existing cleanup templates would work, along with an explanation on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 13:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that advertising is NOT listed at WP:CSD, and as such this template is highly misleading. It should be deleted or reworded per Radiant!. Meelar (talk) 13:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC) Keep, now that it has been reworded. Meelar (talk) 18:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete since advertising is, for some reason, not a candidate for CSD (not even under the current proposals). As Netoholic says, there are other cleanup templates that can be used. -Splash 14:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Splash. This tempalte makes an incorrect statemetn, as simply being advertising is not currently a valid reason for speedy deletion under the CSD. DES 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is true that we do not need a template for every possible speedy delete reason, however it is very useful to have a short way of entering the common cases that show up in practice: a common case is an article that is clearly spam, i.e. just a link to a commercial website. This is useful for reducing the amount of time it takes to label these advertisements, therefore I think Advert will be useful, and I believe the burden to delete this template should now be on the supporters to show that it is actually not useful, it is new, promising, and that it should be properly noted and given a chance to see if it is a useful template or not. --Mysidia 06:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This template claims that a page to which it has been applied is subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD. If a page is meaningful spam, even blantent advertising spam, exactly which of the CSD criteria apply to it? As far as i can see, none of them, so such a page must go to VfD under the current rules. This template says otherwise. If this template denounced ads and put them on VfD, that would be another matter. It doesn't. It contains incorrect statements, and might lead to incorrect action under the current rules. It should go. DES 21:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Above. Advertising, in and of itself, is not a reason for speedy deletion since some non-trivial fraction of all things that get advertised are in fact notable, in which case the facts provided in the advertisement can be used as the foundation for a real page. I would not object to keeping this if Radiant's suggestion for turning this into a cleanup template specifically targeting pages that read like advertisements is followed. Dragons flight 06:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having a myriad of templates like this encourages users to spend time dicking around thinking about what template to put on an article rather than fixing the thing. Second choice: Use only on talk pages. Content for editors goes on the talk page! Pcb21| Pete 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new version is fine, but I think it is still desirable to separately have a quick way of marking unfixable spam for speedy deletion, particularly since {{Template:d}} by itself seems to have been changed to include a rather unsightly {{1}} as of late when an explicit reason is given; even if "it is spam" is not one of the explicit criteria for speedy deletion, it is no coincidence that an article nominated for such deletion was Spam.. probably the real reason an article get nominated which is what should be shown, the CSD just which one it was (Vfd or Speedy), and probably many such advertisement do in fact get nominated for speedy deletion do not strictly meet the CSD, so the template should make it clear that advertisement itself is not the criteria but the article contains no useful content and is /no spam.. or the article contains a link only, i.e. {{d-link}} --Mysidia 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period for comment 15 July PM to 20 July PM — 5 days

Template:Religious persecution

[edit]

A collection of mainly red links. Article series only indicated by similarity in name, while historically not linked. JFW | T@lk 08:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, because the only effective way to counter bias is to have a systematical treatment of all persecutions perpetrated by and against members of religious denominations. This template seems to be an effective means to come to such a treatment. --Germen 09:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote Pending results on VFD for Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews - All in/all out - All In, It's a usefull tool for navigating--Irishpunktom\talk 10:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a meaningful ordering for a template. Radiant_>|< 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as Radiant. Axon 11:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending per Irishpunktom, but keep if either of those articles is kept Note that existing "Persecution of ..." articles could be linked to instead of the non-existant "Religous persecution of ..." articles planned for this abortive series. OTOH, I made this into a navigation bar, and it was not all that much work. Hence my support of deleting if it becomes unpopulated by active articles. --EMS | Talk 15:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have updated the template to activate the "Religous persecution of ..." links. I leave it up to others to decide if that it enough to justify preserving the template. --EMS | Talk 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • New vote: Delete - That template is starting to get some interesting edits. Now I see why those of you who are more experienced want it to go, and be replaced by a category (if it is replaced at all). Suddenly that is looking like a good move.
    • Keep. It is useful, and carries an implicit message to those of a given religion who find one of the pages of "It's not just you!". I think that being able to show people that their faith is not being singled out is important, given the situation that the articles create. Also, the removal of the redlinks has put an end to the attempts to include/exclude other faiths in the list proposed for the series. Given that the articles have survived VfD and that this template seems to have matured into something useful, I now call for it to be kept. --EMS | Talk 18:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize with the others Septentrionalis 15:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Historically unlinked phenomena. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find the idea that religous persecution instances are historically unliked to be an odd view. Often the same event can be listed under a "Perseuction by ..." and a "Persuction of ..." article. There therefore is historical linkage as well as this set of articles (both real and proposed) being intended to form a series.
      I find this template useful as both a navigation bar and a way for people to see the proposed breadth of the series. I feel that it should be retained if any part of the "Religous persecution of ..." series is. (Note that I have already voted above.) --EMS | Talk 20:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)      [reply]
  • Keep Useful template. Agree with Germen. Klonimus 23:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Didn't we have one of these before, and it already got deleted once? --Michael Snow 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alternately if it survives VFD, remove the inherently POV "persecuting group" listings, and only include the "persecuted group" articles. Kaibabsquirrel 00:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created primarily for the persecuting group listings, and has not been integrated into the persecuted group listings.
      I am personally coming to wonder about the criteria used to justify the deletion. If its use is accepted by the editors of the listed articles, then it seems to me that the template itself should be retained. After all, I could respond to the deletion by manually creating the navigation bars in the subject pages. Then the function intended for the template would still exist, albeit will all of the headaches inherent in duplicated code.
      All in all, I am a little amazed by this part of the process, where this template seems to be as much a victim of its functionality as anything else. At the least, I wonder how fair it is that all of the articles which use this template have big VfD notices on them while the template has a much smaller delete notice that is almost invisible by comparison. The result is that many people who may have an opinion on this matter do not know that it is even an issue. --EMS | Talk 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)      [reply]
  • Keep. Comment out any redlinks for now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no proof that recent persecutions were indeed religious not political. Bringing the scriptures alone as a sole evidence is beyond ridiculous. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from the problems with the articles, these are not linked phenomenon that require templates. Use catagories instead.
  • Delete, POV --Eliezer | ???V? m? ? m????g? 12:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the removal of the redlinks and the renaming of the articles, this has become a somewhat stronger template. I politely disagree about there being no linkage: The theme does establish that. However, it is not a well-contained theme. So I retain my delete vote above, but somewhat more grudgingly. In any case, I agree with those who feel that a category is the better way to go. --EMS | Talk 02:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and removed this template from the articles and replaced it with the appropriate category. --Michael Snow 04:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep symetrical, navigational, necesary, no red links left.
  • Strong Keep People are turning this into a deletion of the article vote when it is clearly not.Heraclius 15:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 21 July AM to 29 July PM — 8 days
Removed from TFD 7 August PM — 17 days

Template:Harry Potter spoiler

[edit]

Delete: This is obselete, even before it was created. We have happily used {{spoiler}} for Episode III and various other big-name books/movies without issue, I don't see why this is any more useful than {{spoiler}} is. GarrettTalk 03:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • maybe leave it for a couple of weeks, then delete it and revert to {{Spoiler}}. I think there are many people who will be very annoyed if they find out and the {{Spoiler}} warning may be not noticible enough for newbies. As for Episode III, I think everyone knew what was gonna happen in that. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love the Harry Potter series, but the attitude of the people who write about it here is beginning to annoy. The template is needlessly specific. Superm401 | Talk 03:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and subst. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a tad too specific. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for at least another week or so. This formatting popped up independently on multiple pages, and was reverted after being converted to the normal spoiler template. I created it to ease transition to {{spoiler}} once things slow down on these articles, as clearly explained on its talk page. Yes, it's overspecific, and large, and annoying, and redundant, but it's a much better solution than having this code on those pages instead of a template. Absolutely should not be substed in its current form, as TBSDY suggests - when deleted, it should be replaced with {{spoiler}}. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. --[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 05:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. Radiant_>|< 08:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until 1 August, per Cryptic. Then Delete. If we create a Template: New publication spoiler, less visible than this one, but more visible than Template:spoiler, we can avoid this discussion next year. Septentrionalis 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess it could be made a bit smaller, but it is very helpful. I had just finished HBP and was looking at the Wizarding World page. It spoils who dies right there! I thought that the regular spoiler template meant it only had spoilers for the first five books.Keep for at least three more weeks. It takes some people a long time to read the books. It can get smaller over that time.Phoenix Song 16:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace all instances of this template with {{spoiler}}. I don't think HBP-specific spoilers require their own templates. --Deathphoenix 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have our lovely Template:Spoiler! --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use {{spoiler-about}} to make it clar that the spoilers are for the new work, where this might not be obvious. DES 18:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Book 6 was spoiled for me when carlessly reading an article that just had a regular spoiler warning. I was not expecting, that the information was updated so soon and that such spoilers would be at places where I did not expect them (of course I would not have read sections that were specific to book 6). Leave it for one or two weeks, that should be enough to warn other careless readers like me. -- 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - waaaay too specific. We do not need a template just for spoilers in one book series. Find a better way of doing it. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The regular spoiler warning is sufficient. Anyone that claims otherwise is, in my opinion, such a careless reader then they would probably have missed half the plot reading the book anyway. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regular spoiler warning sufficient. Ingoolemo talk 02:18, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. The generic spoiler warning is actually insufficient in my interpretation. zen master T 07:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind either way, as long as you remove all the old spoiler warnings for the previous books. 14:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Do we really want or need 5,000 different spoiler templates? If we keep this one, why not create a new one for every article? Makes no sense and defeats the entire purpose of a template. Gblaz 15:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't exactly understand the point in deleting a template just because it's narrow. We may be only able to use it for an article or two, but is it really taking up space on the site or something? --SeizureDog 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least use the {{Spoiler}} format. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. {{spoiler}} works fine. -Hmib 17:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / replace with {{spoiler-about}}. Agreed that this is too specific; apologies to the Harry Potter fans but if this template survives then that would be considered tacit support for dozens, neh hundreds of topic-specific spoilers, which I doubt many people would find beneficial. Courtland 01:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comments: Regarding the concern that this template should be retained until a specified time ... it might be appropriate to use {{Current}} or create a template that deals specifically with time-sensitive spoiler information. With regard to immediate obsolescence, information on the content of works that have not yet been published isn't really something we should encourage for inclusion in an encyclopedia, in my opinion, as it is not descriptive but (in many cases) speculative or (in some cases) ill-gotten (i.e. from a stolen copy of a screenplay published on the internet, for instance .. talking in general terms here and not specifically on the Harry Potter matter). Courtland 02:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, use {{spoiler-about}} instead. -Sean Curtin 01:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - {{spoiler}} and {{spoiler-about}} are good enough as it is. We don't need specific spoiler warnings for every single book. Aecis 12:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- but I like the "new publication" suggestion above.--SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign it when I voted)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing special about HP.  Grue  20:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this crawl should probably crawl to /dev/null, overly specific and repetitive since we already have a spoiler template and we don't need 50 overly specific ones as well. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 07:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft m:Instruction creep. BlankVerse ∅ 12:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. other templates suffice. To those that had the book spoiled for them, well, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm a contributor to the HP WikiProject, but I also knew that stuff would be getting added very quickly, so I didnt read any of the HP areas of the wiki until I was done reading the book, knowing there would be spoilers-a-plenty. EvilPhoenix talk 18:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, too specific; {{spoiler}} should be good for all. K1Bond007 04:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refactor into a current-spoiler template. Although I agree that this template is a bit too specific, there is a need for a more prominent spoiler warning in cases like this. —Brent Dax 00:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few more weeks as the book hasn´t reached all of its readers yet, people may be curious to check the articles in English even if they can´t read the whole books in English but are awating for translations, which only come at the end of the year. Doidimais Brasil 05:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary.?Encephalon | T | C 14:55:43, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

Period for comment from 21 July AM to 6 August PM — 16 days

Template:Cleanup-school

[edit]

This is quite a strange one. Firsty somebody added a category totally unrelated to cleanup, somebody else has given it the talk page style, and somebody else has been going around systematically adding it to pages that blatantly have no need for cleanup (this was probabaly just petty vandalism, they've been removing stub templates from stubs as well, but I'm not sure). I've been removing it from all the pages that have no need for it, but by the time I'm done there will be such a tiny number of articles in the category that it will be pointless having it, especially since we can clean them all up in a couple of minutes. Joe D (t) 15:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 21 July PM to 3 August PM — 13 days
Removed from TFD 7 August PM — 17 days

Template:Wi

[edit]

"We don't have an article on this topic but Wiktionary does". While it's a good idea in principle, there are three things wrong with this template (apart from the fact that it isn't widely in use).

  1. Since Wikipedia articles start with a capital and Wiktionary articles do not, the link will generally not work
  2. If we were to add a parameter to this to prevent problem 1, it would be redundant with Template:Wikt.
  3. Any article that consists of only a link to Wiktionary should instead be 1) expanded, or 2) redirected to a similar article that explains it (e.g. redirect a verb to a noun).
  • Keep. Re 1) and 2) Wiktionary redirects from caps to non-caps as a matter of course. Re 3). These aren't articles. These are Wikipedia:Soft redirects. The acceptability of these has been widely discussed and accepted in the past. There are many cases where they are the most natual thing to do. Pcb21| Pete 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On top of that, I've just changed the implementation that helps when redirects are not in place. Pcb21| Pete 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary does not redirect from either capitalization to the other as a matter of course. Whilst redirects exist for many existing articles, that is merely a side-effect of a conversion script that was run once, just after the switch-over, to move the existing articles at the time to lowercase. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Point 1 is simply wrong since Wiktionary uses bots to make redirects from a capitalized to a lowercase form, unless a seperate entry exists at the capitalized form. (see below) So in nearly all cases the link should work. For Point 2, {{wi}} is much prettier than {{wikt}} as it should be since it is intended for otherwise blank pages. For point 3, one intended usage is to leave {{wi}} on pages that have been VFDed with the consensus of "move to wiktionary". This allows a useful link to exist at pages that have never been more than a dictdef. I know I have seen this used on a number of pages beyond what appears on "what links here", so I can only assume that it has been being used with subst:, or that many of those pages subsequently grew up into full wikipedia articles. Regardless, this should not be deleted. Dragons flight 15:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no 'bots performing such redirects at Wiktionary, and there never have been any. The redirects that now exist were created by a one-time process that didn't involve a 'bot. To my knowledge, there is only one 'bot running on Wiktionary at the moment, and it is performing interwiki links. (The few other 'bots that used to run were broken by the MediaWiki upgrade.) Also note that there is at least one user who systematically removes this template. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who is systematically removing this template? Pcb21| Pete 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for clarifying that Uncle G, though I dare say I would wonder why they aren't redirecting uppercase to lowercase, and getting a bot to run on 1.5 is not that hard. Regardless, Pcb's change to directing at the search page would still work consistently, yes? Dragons flight 20:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have long disliked this template as it is so often applied to titles that actually deserve articles or disambig pages. - SimonP 17:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The template is already worded to encourage users to replace it if a internal-to-Wikipedia solution is better. Educating users about the intended use is much more useful than deleting the genuine uses. Pcb21| Pete 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe reword a bit, I think this is the best solution for pages that people keep creating but will never be more than dicdefs. JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it cuts down on VFDs for dicdefs. Maybe a future version of mediawiki will have a better soft-redirect solution. Eliot 20:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. If it does cut down on vfd listings, it's because instead of actually deleting a bad, potential-free dicdef, this is just slapped on instead. This was originally meant to prevent recreations of common words, like under and carry. In that regard, I think {{deletedpage}} does the same making this redundant. It has also been misused and abused on pages that should be just delete outright, and aren't common enough to warrant any danger of recreation. I find it very unlikely that Jerrybuild needs this at all. Lastly, since its entire purpose is to be an interwiki link, or redirect, it is effectively no content. This does not make a valid encyclopedia article, in fact, it discourages one if its possible. It's interesting to note that the result of this template is to create an article that perfectly fits the CSD: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title." --Dmcdevit?t 21:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • You appear to suggest that a page consisting of just this template is an article, and thus can be deleted under CSD. But it isn't an article. It's a redirect. We like redirects, whether they internal to a single project, or cross boundaries to another wikimedia project. Sounds like you are viewing this template with the wrong mindset. Pcb21| Pete 10:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a much better alternative to VfD for dicdefs. Redirects are in place at Wiktionary, pending a more automated solution (see meta:Ultimate Wiktionary), so the capitalisation is not an issue. Angela. 06:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Problems with this template include its obfuscated name; the "1000 shortest articles" issue mentioned on its Talk page; Wiktionary capitalization; its discouraging of proper VfDs; its duplication of {{deletedpage}}, {{wiktionary}}, and empty-page content; its creation of bluelinks for "articles" with no content; its implicit discouraging of edits by users who stumble upon a {{Wi}}'ed page; its being a solution to a nonexistent problem (the repeated re-creation of dicdef articles, which rarely happens); and general instruction creep. --Quuxplusone 22:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete soft redirects are silly, whether in articles or by making categories that don't exist blue, they cause more trouble than they're worth. They have not been adopted as policy. Dunc|☺ 22:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for the sole purpose of stopping people from repeatedly recreating dicdef articles. —Simetrical (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 21 July PM to 1 August PM — 11 days
Removed from TFD 6 August AM — 15 days

Template:ADCE and Template:BCEBC

[edit]

These templates are very bad for they insert the same information into the text thrice! It doesn't matter that one doesn't see it only once in a CSS-enabled browser, becaused that's just one way of reading Wikipedia.

If such a thing as AD/CE user preference was really needed—there's no consensus about that AFAIK and no preference in the MoS—it would have to be done in the Wikimedia software itself. Christoph P�per 12:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, instruction creep, doesn't save time, confusing, and barely in use. Radiant_>|< 12:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Instruction creep? Where is the instruction?
    • Save time? Where the heck did anyone say it saves time? It is a device to implement a user preference.
    • Confusing? Delete all templates?
    • Barely in use? Well ok this is true, but is not a criteria for deletion.
  • Keep - if it displayed three times then the CSS sheets have been broken. Fix them. Don't delete a solution to an issue that caused a create deal of debate just a month or two ago. Of course a software solution is preferable, but let's see your code. Pcb21| Pete 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't fix the CSS a) if CSS is not in use b) it's user CSS. --EnSamulili 19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record - by instruction creep I meant that the AD/CE proposal was voted down as such, and that I believe you can't feasibly expect article writers to adopt to this relatively non-straightforward template. It would make editing those articles containing it more confusing. Radiant_>|< 12:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is wrong that we expect to editors to link dates as ;[[day month]] [[year]] rather than the actually useful [[day month year]] simply to accommodate user preferences and then do not use these - which allow user preference without a similar drawback. Their use is intuitively obvious when you seen them in article, unlike many other templates., so I reject your characterization. Pcb21| Pete 16:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless IMO, when you could type it yourself, AND with a wikilink which this does not (in this revision) allow. And if at some point in time we grow so litigious that some users want to see BC/AD and others BCE/CE, we'll make it a preferences option like the date/time rewriting. GarrettTalk 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Weak Keep, now the mechanics are explained it seems quite sensible, although the complexity of adding and using it can hopefully be ironed out.[reply]
    • It is unreasonable for editors to be expected to remember and use CSS class names themselves, remembering a template is much easier. Sounds a bit like you also don't understand the purpose (admittedly if you are not using monobook this is understandable). See User:Pcb21/ADCE_testing_page for a little more detail. Pcb21| Pete 16:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. I only looked at the template code so didn't realise it actually did anything, it just looked like shorthand for "BCE/BC", much as someone once made a template to insert a standard bullet. Still I think there could be an easier way to do it. The dates convert without interference (merely [[]] around them), so there would ideally be a way to do this as well, maybe by putting YEAR beside it and it recognising and converting like with ISBN 0091801788 or whatnot. GarrettTalk 08:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have taken the liberty of adding a more complete test to your User:Pcb21/ADCE_testing_page. If the problem is that I just don't understand how it works, fix it up so those problems don't occur. But I suspect it is just a significant design problem. Gene Nygaard 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cleverly implements the preference option Garrett mentions. —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I welcome any template that could cut down on edit war an percieved POV issues. --goethean ॐ 21:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My instinct was delete, but having looked at the cogs I like it. It would be better if done in the MediaWiki code, but until it is, keep it. Joe D (t) 21:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either this template is meant to be used, in which case it's instruction creep; or else it's not meant to be used, in which case it's unused. The wacky CSS use and meta-templates are just two more strikes. In any event, I don't think many atheists are going to be canceling their Wikipedia subscriptions over a few "AD 47"s. --Quuxplusone 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, fix, reimplement at Template:CE, Template:BCE (or something similarly short), see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Cease-fire_on_eras. These templates will be used millions of times all over WP, so better choose something as short as possible. By "fix" I mean, there should be a configuration button somewhere, not everybody will be able to hack their stylesheets, and the "default" "BC/BCE" is more horrible than either convention... Also, once they are accepted as good practice, they should be protected, since any vandalism to them will turn up like a dozen times on the average WP article. dab (ᛏ) 19:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing. Ugly if you don't jump through the hoops, apparently works only with one skin. Screws up date preferences even if you have jumped through the hoops (the presence or absence of commas, in particular). Probably also keeps preference for 2001-01-15 date format from working. Gene Nygaard 19:58:15, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
  • Delete because of the CSS issues mentioned by the nominator. —msh210 20:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Instruction creep. What is next? Templates to appease people who whine about which flavor/flavour/{{flavor-or-flavour}} of English to use? --Bletch 16:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The closest thing ever to a compromise in this issue. It is mountains better than arguing about it. Common Era, here i come! gkhan 11:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see this as making articles harder to read. It adds no value to the content and it will probably cause a few edit or revert wars. The cost of any perceived gain is not worth it. These templates almost look like an invitation to a war. This almost appears like a backdoor way to phase in a new policy. In the word of another editor, ugly! Vegaswikian 17:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period for comment 21 July PM to 2 August PM — 12 days

Template:WP:RM

[edit]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this template. It's no less simple than the current procedure at WP:RM, has an obscure name and isn't documented anywhere. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period for comment 22 July PM to 30 July AM — 7 days

Template:Deletebecause/empty

[edit]

A specialized CSD tag similar to the {{nonsense}} that is really more instruction creep. First, it is much easier to type "{{db|Little or no context}}". Second, all of the CSD tags already say in the second paragraph that if "you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add that as an admin who handles CSD, the less templates adding to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, the better. Only {{nonsense}} and {{deleteagain}} are useful as extra templates, since they are very common; the rest can get {{deletebecause}} or {{db}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a handy tool for anyone on new page patrol, although I might have called it {{db-empty}} as being easier to remember.DES 14:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote at this time). The reason I added the text the way that I did is that I hope that it will encourage people to expand the articles, and avoid deletion. In other words, I added the extra text for the potential benefit of regular non-admin editors who might stumble upon the article, and choose to expand it. If anyone can see any way the template can be improved, feel free. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd just like to state, I do understand the reasoning behind this nomination, and extra templates that clutter up the category can make things a bit confusing. The primary reason I created this template, as I said, was to hopefully encourage people to expand articles that meet speedy delete criteria, and avoid the deletions. But it does raise the issue that, if a template is created for one speedy deletion criteria, what would stop others from being created? If this were to happen, we'd certainly have a cluttered category. I don't really see this template as instruction creep, but I agree that it isn't really needed.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and rename). This is the equivalent of {{db| Article does not appear to contain sufficient information to warrant an article. If you can correct this, please do so and remove this notice.}}, which is not (in practice) going to be used. Don't bite the newbies. Septentrionalis 02:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above, if "you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." is already in the second paragraph on all of the CSD tags. Adding "If you can correct this, please do so and remove this notice" is redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Tools aren't instruction creep, since no one is really required to use it, and it sure seems a lot easier than typing all that Septentrionalis wrote! --Titoxd 03:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Delete. They should be using {{db}}. There is no need for a specialized version of that template. BlankVerse ∅ 09:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see where I am instructed or even recommended to use this, so I don't see any creep. If the words on the screen are the same as when I type them out in full manually, what harm is done? -Splash 14:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have edited this to remove the redundant comment about removing the notice, so anyone who felt that was the major problem with this template might want to reconsider his or her vote. DES 19:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd prefer that people use {{db|reason}} to provide a specific reason rather than using this template. JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I renamed the template from template:db:a1 to template:deletebecause/empty to help clear some of the clutter from the category, and perhaps make it easier on the admins. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any instruction creep here. --malathion talk 01:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See earlier comments for {{nn-bio}}, above. =P Xaa 04:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period for comment 26 July PM to 6 August AM — 10 days

Template:Nn-bio

[edit]

As an admin who handles CSD I almost speedy deleted this one. Like Template:Db:a1 I put here on TFD earlier, I am very concerned about having specialized CSD tags for each and every CSD criterion. This is instruction creep. The less templates added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, the better. Only {{nonsense}} and {{deleteagain}} are useful as extra templates, since they are very common; the rest can get {{deletebecause}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extreme Delete. more m:Instruction creep. If the folks on RC patrol really think that there need to be some more templates, the should get together with the admins handling CSD and agree on some reasonable templates with reasonable names. Otherwise, as User: Zzyzx11 said, the fewer templates the better. BlankVerse ∅ 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, this one is not needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also {{deletevanity}} and its redirect {{dv}}. —Cryptic (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this as a tool. How is it instruction creep? No one is required to use it, it simply provides a quicker way to do the exact same thing. If soemone objects to the name (which seems fairly clear to me) then suggest a better one, the tempalte can always be moved to a better name if one is proposed. If anyone prefers not to use this template, that person can use {{db}} insted. But this saves a lot of typing when encountering many non-notable-bios, and does no harm. The name is not nearly as esoteric as that of Template:Db:a1 DES 14:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see the instruction, so I don't see the creep. Why would you have me type exactly those words out by hand all the time? What would that achieve? -Splash 14:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment m:Instruction creep says Instruction creep occurs when a well-meaning user thinks "Hrm ... this page would be better if everyone was supposed to do this". Nowhere does this template say that everyoen is supposed to do soemthing, and nowhere is it even hinted that everyone who wnats to speedy an articel under CSD A7 should or must use this tempalte, so where is the instruction, and where is the creep? An expanded toolset is not the same as an expanded list of instructions. DES 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It is m:Instruction creep when a well-meaning person starts adding all sorts of addition ways to say {{deletebecause}} when that template (and it's very short redirect {{db}}) is sufficient for the task. I think that you should be paying particularly close attention when one of the admins who is responsible for responding to the various delete tags when he says this one is unneeded and unwanted. BlankVerse ∅ 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Extremely useful template. About 30% of newly created articles need this tag. It is needed far more than {{nonsense}}. --malathion talk 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template is not necessary. Hall Monitor 16:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply {{nonsense}} is not "necessary" either but it is extremely useful. The only difference is that {{nonsense}} is already in common use. I don't see any reason why those of us who regularly babysit Wikipedia for new vanity articles should have to type all that every time. I tagged more than 10 articles in an just hour with it. --malathion talk 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm struggling to see the instruction creep. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Instruction creep? I don't see how. Anyway, it's sure easier than typing all that out. --Canderson7 20:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No instructions, no creep. Handy shortcut for {{deletebecause}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickptar (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 July 2005
  • Neutral as I helped create one of the above templates and would probably constitute a conflict of intrests. That being said, the reason people see a creation for these templates is a) there was a new CSD which partially warrants it and b) vanity pages are so very common on new pages patrol that this is pretty useful to any non-admin. That being said, I don't think EVERY speedy delete category requires a tag but this one is so frequently used that it makes sense to have it's own template. There's my two cents. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The majority of speedies are this one, and I'd rather not have to type this every time I need it. If we're going to get rid of templates, I'd suggest {{nonsense}}, since most articles tagged with it don't fall under Wikipedia's definition of the word. Denni☯ 01:10, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
  • Delete, I would prefer that people take the time to type {{db|reason}} rather than use this. JYolkowski // talk 01:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not instruction creep as it's in no way compulsory for the CSD-marker. Even if we get one template per CSD marker, that wouldn't pollute the template namespace too badly would it? --fvw* 07:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I find it very helpful. The template contains quite a bit of helpful explanation and a citation of the releved CSD rules, which would be a pain to type out manually. --Pyroclastic 08:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's faster to type, you don't have to use it so it's not instruction creep. cohesion | talk 09:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, this can certainly be useful. - ulayiti (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • leep.@@@@
  • Keep. Tools are not instruction creep; that said, make sure that these criteria templates are similar in format and appearance to {{db}}. --Titoxd 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename. Since one of the complaints about these templates (see also Template:db:a1 below) is that they end up sprinkled throughout Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, making it inconvenient for administrators who are cleaning out the category. Perhaps we can agree on a single prefix for all the speedy deletion templates so that they appear together in the (alphabetically-sorted) category? For example, this template could be renamed Template:db-bio. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same should be used for {{{Db:a1}}}, which is up for deletion below. If specialized templates are going to be used, start them with "db-" so they don't clutter the category. --Titoxd 20:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename. I think it is a useful template for a very common speedy category (remember these are very common which is why this critera was created to begin with). No one is required to use it so I really don't see any downside to having it around. I do agree with the proposal to rename it though. Its currently a bit clumsy to type/remember. Gblaz 22:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    Reply I suggest using {{dv}}, which redirects to this template and is easy to type/remember (Delete Vanity). --malathion talk 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; instruction creep, and unprofessional in the cryptic reference to "CSD A7." (Newbies will call that "proof by intimidation.") Certainly needs a renaming if the consensus is "keep." Also, Blu Aardvark suggests turning this template into a subpage of {{db}}, which I think is an excellent idea, as long as it's actually possible. We could have {{db/test}}, {{db/nonsense}}, {{db/vandalism}}, {{db/again}}, and {{db/vanity}}. As far as I'm concerned, "non-notable" and "vanity" ought to be synonymous; if somebody's making a page about a non-notable person and it's not out of vanity, I want to know why. :) (With the exception of Internet fads like the Numa Numa kid, I guess.) --Quuxplusone 22:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply If you think the "CSD A7" reference is bad, please feel free to edit the template, or bring that up on the talk page. Incidentally, I agree that it shouldn't be explicitly named in the template, since the candidates for speedy deletion critera are already linked. As for the subpage idea, I wouldn't mind that, just as long as the template exists in some easy to type form. --malathion talk 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've taken the liberty of moving the template to Template:Deletebecause/vanity, to help clear up the category listing a bit. All of the redirects have been corrected accordingly, and you can use either of them. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have moved it back and reverted the edit. The rename makes this useless as a tool, or nearly so, the point is to have soemthign shrot and memorable to type. Having to type "deletebecause/vanity" is worhless. Besiude this is not about "vanity" this is about non-notability or more exactly absence of any claims of notability. The reference to CSD A7 should in my view stay, ther is already a link to the CSD, and this tells anyone seeing this mesage exactly which itme on that page is being referenced. I am trying to assume good faith, but these chages seem like attemps by people who don't like this template to reder it pointless. The explicit mention of A7 is less vital, but the move is rediculous. do we have any other commonly used tool template that is a subpage? Do we have any normal template that is a subpage? Really now. DES 14:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read what he said about the redirects? You do not have to type the full template name, just use one of the redirects (yes, {{nn-bio}} won't stop working just because the template was moved, as long as the redirect is still there). However, having all the delete templates bunched together in the category is less confusing for admins cleaning the category. --cesarb 15:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I was hasty, but then it seems to me that Blu Aardvark wasa hasty also. does he plan to do tbis with {{tl|nonsense} and {{delete}} as well? I could see renaming them all to have a common prefix, with redircts for handy typing, say {{db-empty}}, {{db-bio}}, {{db-nonsense}}, {{db-noreason}}, and have a policy that any furhter such templates created follow a similar naming pattern. But why not discuss for a day or so and come to an agreement on names before doing this? as to the subpage, no other working templates I know of are on sub-pages, do we really want this as a precedent? (I don't count things like the tranclusion of VfD sub-pages, I mean templates inteded for use on multiple pages). I am not trying to be unreasonable, and i'm sorry if i over-reacted, I admit that I saw the move and undid it BEFORE I saw the discussion here. What do you think of the idea of having all the speedy deeltion tempaltes share a common prefix, as opposed to using subpages? DES 15:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      When looking at the category, having a common prefix and being subpages of the same page have exactly the same effect. --cesarb 15:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine. Then is the common-prefix solution acceptable to you? Is it acceptable to Blu Aardvark? To anyone else interested? Are the names I suggested above acceptable, or does anyone have better ideas? Will this serve your needs as well as the sub-page idea? DES 15:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm perfectly fine with any common prefix. The only reason I suggested suppages is because they will be listed directly with the other delete templates, but {{db-vanity}} or {{db-nnbio}} works alright too. And remember, that redirects will still work accordingly. --21:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      Your suggestion of {{db-vanity}} is not only no easier to type, but it's not even an improvement. If you have a problem with the use of the word "vanity" to describe not-notable pages, then please don't use the template. But let the rest of us have this tool that is so useful. --malathion talk 18:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you read what was said about redirects above? Only the true name of the template clutters the category, but you can use all the redirects which point to it. --cesarb 19:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I read what was said. My comment wasn't about that. It seemed that DES is objecting to the use of the word "vanity" in the template for some reason, which I don't think necessitates removing the template, or deleting {{db/vanity}}. If someone doesn't agree with the use of that word, they should simply not use the template. --malathion talk 23:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      I do think that "vanity" is not the best term for this, which is why I originally created it as {{nn-bio}} and later endorsed the suggestion of {{db-bio}}. The reason I feel that way is that not all non-notable bios are, strictly speaking, vanity pages. But I can see the point for a common prefix convention. I repent my suggestion that the primary names be {{db-empty}} (the former {{db-a1}}), {{db-bio}} (the former {{nn-bio}}), {{db-nonsense}} (the fomer {{nonsense}}), and {{db-noreason}} (the former {{delete}}). We can have whatever redirects people find useful. Does anyone object to this basic concept? Does anyone object to these four specific names? DES 04:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. handy. pamri 07:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont see instruction creep in this, it is a mere shortcut not much different than the WP:xx shortcuts. The intention is still the same. {{Db|Non notable; vanity}} == {{nn-bio}}. Just a shorter way to type it, as there are a ton of vanity articles added each day. ∞Who?¿? 07:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How many different ways of saying the same thing do we need? There's this, {{[[Template::deletevanity|:deletevanity]]}}, {{dv}}...what purpose does this serve? — Gwalla | Talk 05:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are also {{d}}, {{del}} and {{delete}}. Two of these redirect to the third. Similarly, dv and deletevanity redirct to nn-bio. This is one template you are dealing with, not three. DES 05:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- may not understand all the issues of similar templates or redirects, but this one seems very useful -- most of the speedy's I see fit this criteria; it's one I'd use. -- DavidH 06:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- nice way to put a more informative message in the article if the nominator so chooses. I think {d-(template)} might be a better scheme, though, i.e. {{d-nnbio}},{{d-a1}}, etc --Mysidia 01:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find this template to be incredibly useful. Maybe we need a better namespacing system, but let's implement that before deleting these handy templates. Agentsoo 22:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is useful: short and easy to remember. DS1953 03:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent & useful template. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Useful but overlaps with {{Deletebecause|reason}}.
  • Strong Keep. I disagree that this is instruction creep. As someone who regularly patrols NewPages, I get real tired of constantly having to go to WP:CSD to get the wording and specific criteria right, and would love to have templates for each of the criteria, which would make it a lot faster to tag articles with speedy. Personally I would love to chew through CSD nominations, but I'm not an admin, but I prefer seeing speedy tags on pages that are specific and precise, and I think this one achieves that. If anything, I would like to have templates for each of the criteria that are consistent, but this is a useful template, and one I would like to use. EvilPhoenix talk 02:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep having templates for each of the speedy criteria is useful. It saves us the time to write a full explanation with every nomination and vanity articles are all too common. I've seen too many people tag it as nonsense, so this is desperately needed. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I think this is quite different from {{vanity}} and I see it as a useful template Lacrymology 17:04:22, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are so MANY junk articles being posted, I think even shaving a few keystrokes off an editor's fingers would be useful. Reducing it to a single mouse-click might allow a team of a thirty or forty thousand editors to keep on top of the junk. Maybe. But only if we give them direct IV's of Mountain Dew and hire the crew from Extreme Makeover: Home Edition to install a computer and a refridgerator within reach of the potty. =P Xaa 04:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite handy. Michael 06:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 27 July AM to 8 August AM — 12 days

Template:Pluto

[edit]

Period for comment 29 July PM to 10 August AM — 12 days

Template:Japanese

[edit]

This template is a Japanese language table. The idea has been brought up before at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles#Template_for_articles_Japanese_terms. People who responded were unanimously opposed. --Tokek 23:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It looks like the discussion you've linked to was related to {{Japanesename}}, not this template. Skimming the discussion, it seems the opposition was focused on the fact that the other template was cluttered due to the extra transliterations. Perhaps this smaller, less cluttered box with only one transliteration would be more acceptable. If it were used consistently, I think it could be useful. —HorsePunchKid→龜 (かめ, kame ;) 23:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I applied this template on the Suikoden article if people want to see what it looks like in context. I think it's fairly unobtrusive. I will revert here if consensus is to delete the template. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion linked was about the exact same idea. As mentioned in the older discussion, the format "term (kanji romaji)" suits Japanese-related articles well, while for other languages, a table might add value. If Japanese tables are to be kept, however, merge {{Japanesename}} and {{Japanese}}, or delete one. --Tokek 04:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion was about the same basic idea, but as I said, the objections appeared to be largely about the fact that the box was cluttered (due to excess transliterations). My point was that because this template is substantially different in that respect, the unanimity in rejecting the other template is not as relevant as you implied. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I agree that one or the other should go, in any event. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the arguments made against the idea of using tables still hold irrespective of table size. "Lesser obtrusiveness" would be a reason for me to vote "slightly weaker delete." --Tokek 08:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This may sound silly, but I think that if these templates are kept and merged, the final name should probably be something more like {{kanji-info}}. As BlankVerse has pointed out, Japanese is too vague, and Japanesename is too specific (not that that would necessarily limit how people apply it). I think kanji-info would be a good target name, since (presumably) the only people who would be adding this template would know the term kanji, and further, kanji-info makes it more clear what the purpose of the template is. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, maybe a template like the one I've put up in my sandbox might be more appropriate. It contains basically the same information. The only problem is that both the wiki markup and the output are necessarily rather large. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er... that's a pretty spartan template... also doesn't reference katakana 132.205.44.43 19:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think kanji-info would work too well, if the kanji portion said "none" to inform the reader that this cannot be rendered in kanji... 132.205.44.43 19:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting! The version I made is spartan specifically so that it can be used inline, perhaps as a way of ensuring consistent formatting in articles with Japanese terms renderable in kanji in their titles, if that makes any sense. There is no reference to katakana because they are not (as far as I'm aware) used for furigana, except possibly to distinguish on and kun readings, which I don't think is important here. But we could just have the link go to kana instead of hiragana, if it's an issue. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Instantnood 14:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's possible that there are specific articles where this would come in handy. Until then, it isn't doing any harm, and it isn't likely to be confused with anything else. -- Visviva 13:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period for comment 30 July PM to 7 August PM — 8 days

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Not_deleted/July_2005&oldid=1145854551"