Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/December 2005

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log‎ | Deleted

Template:Signed

edit

Delete: Considering that we already have the "unsigned" template, I don't think we need a "signed" one. HappyCamper 23:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:if

edit

Delete: Not used. – Adrian | Talk 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would propose not to do a redirect. qif is at the moment an extreme high use template: What links here lists 31'000+ articles. A redirect means an additional database lookup, which should be avoided. At least, if there is a real need to have qif under the name if, please copy the contents of qif to if. Do not create a redirect. Disclaimer: Beware of WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intent was to imply that, if a rename is done, another bot run should be performed to change all instances of {{qif}} (back) to {{if}}. But the naming issue is actually rather minor, and it may not actually be worth doing anything about until this entire logic template controversy is settled. Hopefully we'll eventually get new MediaWiki syntax that will obsolete all these templates, preferably sooner that later. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:User 2.05, Template:User es 1337, Template:User ca 1337, Template:User_ast_1337

edit

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings

edit

Delete: A template covering the entire Hudson River, Template:Hudson River crossings, has been created (and already used north of the city line), and I think it would be good to put that all along the Hudson River. Having both would make them a bit cluttered, not to mention the fact that all really within the City have Template:NY-bt. I have already put notices on all of the talk pages for these articles, and noone has strongly objected. I suggest that first Template:Hudson River crossings be used all along, and then, pending the result of this TFD, all instances of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings be removed and it be deleted. Redirection would not work, since the newer one uses north and south parameters. Chris 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Webber

edit

Delete: Found on Wikipedia:Neglected articles, this oddity is a template from one editor warning other editors not to revert his edits. BD2412 T 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:FrTed

edit

Quotes from Father Ted are not all that relevant to a lot of our users, so they send a confusing message. Cute at the expense of effectiveness. FreplySpang (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Userfying is probably the best solution; no one would object to this template if it was at, say, User:Jtdirl/FrTed, and the template would still have the exact same effect when someone typed {{User:Jtdirl/FrTed}}. It's having bad jokes and nonsense like this on the Template namespace that's a problem. -Silence 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler MC top

edit

An unused combination of {{spoiler top}} and {{solution}}. —Cryptic (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-red

edit

As below. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:Vwatched

edit

Pointless template - adds nothing to the article. Should never have been created and should never be used. Raul654 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this becomes widely used, won't the absence of it encourage vandals even more? Kusma (討論) 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (creator): This was created for use on high-profile pages that would normally be protected, particularly pages describing current events. Protection of such pages allows out-of-date or incorrect information to remain for a prolonged period of time during the peak viewing time of the page. The intent of the template is to allow such pages to be unprotected, allowing editorial collaboration on the live article, while notifying vandals that their usual right to deface a page three or four times before being dealt with doesn't apply.
         A notable example is the Stanley Williams article, whose subject was executed earlier today, which was protected for much of the time leading up to and after the event. The template was created and placed there as an alternative to continuing a prolonged protection, and the article was positively edited by many editors with very little vandalism (and no major vandalism). The template was in place for just under an hour before being removed by Raul654 (nominator). I disagree that the template will encourage vandalism; it simply points out that vandalism on that page is dealt with more immediately than usual, not that vandalism on other articles isn't dealt with. // Pathoschild 02:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep useful as an extreme warning. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very presence of this warning will encourage vandalism, if not on the article in question, then on other articles. Let the vandals assume by default that all articles are closely watched for vandalism, which is usually the case anyway. —Psychonaut 02:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Useless. An extreme warning contributes nothing to Wikipedia articles, as there are already countless tags for such matters as "controversial topics". If it isn't currently locked to deal with vandalism, we shouldn't discourage valid contributions to articles with intimidating. Just continue to revert vandalisms as we always have. As soon as we brand perfectly good articles with big ugly boxes just because of vandalism, the vandals win: they've successfully made a strong impression, and can gladly continue their efforts on this and other articles when they want a similar amusing reaction, a sort of "badge of honor" for the hard work they've put into messing with others' hard work. -Silence 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use on George W. Bush. If the only other alternative is protection, this is a good last ditch effort to preserve the Wiki-way. Firebug 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you realize that GWB will still have to be proteted from vandalism when it gets out of control, completely regardless of whether the tag is here. There is no "other option", this is just a poorly-thought-out and meaningless overlabeling that will in the end only cause more vandalisms and subsequent page protections for every article that ever uses it, GWB included. -Silence 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Television 3

edit

Delete, not used →AzaToth 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FFII

edit

Navigational Aid between pages that have now been merged together. Redundent. Speedy Delete if possible. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subst:NPOV and Template:Subst:Prettytable

edit

These templates are pointless because the leading subst: stops them from being used. Susvolans ⇔ 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, ugly, waste of the Wiki. --Computerjoe 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated 2005-11-24–2005-12-01

edit

Template: if2

edit

Delete: Should not be used any more, {{show1}} is used instead. --AzaToth talk 17:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: ifdef

edit

Delete: use {{if}} instead --AzaToth talk 17:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two duplicate Philosophy Templates: Conflict over which tag name to keep

edit
The vote was to delete the below template, but merge Philosophy (navigation) (which has the same title as the deleted template
"Philosophy Quick Navigation Guide") into the Portal:Philosophy, by either embedding it directly into the Portal's page, or by storing it on a subpage and transcluding it. The discussion for Philosophy (navigation) can be found on the keep log. Go for it! 03:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template: Philosophy Quick Topic Guide
edit

Delete: Duplicate at Template:Philosophy_(navigation), which is the original and has a shorter title. Talk Page Infinity0 17:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does Brobdingnagian have to do with this??? Did you post in the wrong section? Template:Philosophy_(navigation) has been through a TfD before, the end result was Keep. Infinity0 19:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As is said in the article, Brobdingnagian is an adjective describing something of enormous size. Listify and delete both both for this reason. —jiy (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template: Philosophy topics
edit

Keep, and use it on the portal in addition - (BTW, I withdraw my nomination to delete). Infinity0 and I have worked on this thing for weeks! Go for it! 06:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would be absurd; since the portal contains the cats list, this template is overkill, and simply confuse users. Delete this template and stick to the cats list. Banno 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why include a list of philosophical links on a page that contains a list of philosophical links? Can someone explain the appeal of this doubling-up to me? Banno 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per Pjacobi. This template is far too large to be useful as a navigational aid and belongs rather in a portal. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:58:49Z
  • Delete. Not useful, and isn't a quick guide to overview articles. —thames 05:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There are already several navigation features built in to the Wiki. The most obvious one is the "See also" section of each article. Combined with the Cats page, these two should be sufficient, provided they are done properly. So it is incumbent on editors that they ensure the cats and "see also" are correct and usable. In that regard this template is a distraction. It is also almost unreadable, and biased in a way that the cats will not be. And it is too large - on some philosophy articles, half the page will consist of this template. Banno 09:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a Merge can be arranged. User:Go for it! and User:Infinity0 brought this on themselves by their inability to compromise, but a philosophy template is clearly useful. It should be named "Template:Philosophy", and the existing templates should Merge. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not that useful. The "See also" for each article would be far preferable. Banno

Template: Deletion tools

edit

Delete: This is apparently a duplicate of Template:Deletiontools, except with a different design and not floated to the right. It doubles the effort of updating Template:Deletiontools, and it's only used on one user subpage. Coffee 01:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resevoir dogs

edit

Delete: Useless trivia and unencyclopedic. (Also, it's jarringly ugly and not even spelled correctly, though that's not why I'm nominating it.) --Misterwindupbird 01:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lotvandal

edit

This rather lovely little template positively screams the fact that the article is lousy and not worth reading. Then, it goes on to bite the newbies by threatening to block them if their edit is vandalism. If I were making my first edit to Wikipedia on George W. Bush and Muhammad (where this was used) it'd sure put me off. This isn't the way to do things, isn't needed, and was shot down in flames on Talk:George W. Bush. Delete. -Splashtalk 02:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds good to me. I agree whole-heartedly. It's bad enough to have it hidden in the text, but saying it was vandalized repeatedly doesn't really do it for me. We need to come up with a solution--a better solution--than this, or the article's doomed. What do people think about semi-protect? -Mysekurity 02:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that Dubya is going to be vandalized. Period. Perhaps we could use semi-protection, but what we won't use is biting newbies. Delete. Titoxd(?!?) 02:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • #include<Template:vandal> Delete. Chris talk back 03:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that somebody would be dettered by these, but the limited track record of these tags seems bleak. I have tagged articles with these, and maybe the few vandals it deters is negatated by the vandals that get egged on, either way there is little difference. I thought that this tag looked better than the last, and that it might fair better. I am putting full faith in Semi-Protect now. However, I am not voting delete because of the "the article is lousy and not worth reading" idea, as I definitely do not see it that way.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find where it was shot down in flames. I just wanted to create a template to warn vandals. My first template, and now everybody wants it deleted. this just sucks. --karrmann
  • Extreme delete. Essentially a replacement for the Template:Stopvandalism that was nominated below and is going to be deleted. Not quite a candidate for speedy deletion, but... BlankVerse 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 15:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:ObertestTemplate

edit

Delete: What is this template? –AzaToth talk 20:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: if equal

edit

Delete: It's now substed, so no templates are using this any more. –AzaToth talk 20:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Unicode chart…default font

edit

Delete: Full list here, all orphaned and redundant; versions exist without explicit font specifications which are much more useful. Phil | Talk 09:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sobreakit

edit

Delete. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can vandalize any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold and ignore all rules. In light of current events, is it really a good idea to have this template around? Firebug 05:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJ Congress 7

edit

This is(was) a duplicate of NJ Congress 07 and is just unneccessary. my mistake. —theomanno (talk)

Template:Talkpage

edit

A blank template, made for the talk page of a single user (Jachin) and blanked three minutes later, its only edits. I vote Delete and hope I can contact the user and get it speedied as he is its only contributer (aside my adding the TFD notice). Erath 17:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it was originally being organised for a group of Wikipedians I associate with to make a default template for our talk pages with general protocol outlined, we all decided to suffer the extra bytes as the wording was variable between users. My apologies. 211.30.72.208 00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Nirvana

edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Samsara

edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seedab

edit

What's the difference between this template and Template:Otheruses? --Hottentot 03:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template not finished yet... Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: MaintenanceCOTW

edit

Delete: It's not a substantive addition over Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week/current, so is redundant. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Navigation bar with pictures

edit

Delete: Does not appear to do anything; only used in one article, where it creates redlinks; apparent template-within-a-template purpose is better served by just making the target template right in the first place. BD2412 T 15:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Template: Infobox_Showbiz

edit

Delete: I don't know of a suitable replacement, but this is only used in one article and could probably be subst'd in for that prior to deletion. This is by the same author as Template:Infobox_Film (below). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Film

edit

Delete: Unused, duplicated at the (far superior) {{Infobox Movie}}.--Sean|Black 07:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CVG/ratings

edit

Delete: Unused template, Template:Infobox CVG/rating is the currently used one. Thunderbrand 22:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Feature

edit

Needless duplicate of Template:Feature, in the wrong namespace. Suggest deleting and replacing links. MediaWiki space should only be used for internal system messages -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Goodolddays

edit

Personal template in the wrong namespace. MediaWiki space should only be used for internal system messages -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:IrishUni

edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Sami_navigator

edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


MediaWiki:StatusVulnerable

edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:U.S.Regions

edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Db-uselessdisambiguation & derived

edit

also Template:uselessdab, Template:emptydab & Template:db-a9

Template:Standards

edit

Delete: This template is orphaned, and apparently never finished. It was created by an unregistered user in response to the deletion of some dubious material and serves no purpose. Willmcw 20:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHL mascots

edit

Delete: Since the entries on this template are essentially just in alphabetical order, I would prefer, under WP:CLS, that it be converted into a list called List of National Hockey League mascots. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central_Baseball_League

edit

Delete: League no longer exists; disbanded after 2005 season. –Swid 16:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia

edit

What's the point? --Hottentot 19:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Delete it.--Anti-Anonymex2Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco! 19:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y templates

edit

Template:Y1, Template:Y2, Template:Y3 and Template:Y4 were sandbox test templates, and no longer needed. --82.7.125.142 17:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costliest hurricanes

edit

Delete: Moved to {{Costliest US Atlantic hurricanes}}. Jdorje 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GamespyE3Awards2005

edit

Delete: Not used in any articles, and all around useless and unruly. Similar to the deleted Template:Xbox25greatest. Thunderbrand 20:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UPC

edit

Delete Looks like a confused attempt to make an article. --Sherool (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFDdis

edit

Disastrously misguided. There is no such thing as an afd disambiguation page. —Cryptic (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated 2005-12-02–2005-12-09

edit

Template:UPC Starbase

edit

Template:Don't delete

edit

I can't see any reason why this template should exist. I am stuggling to find a rationale for deletion, as there just is no logical reason at all for keeping it. [[Sam Korn]] 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twins

edit

A template that serves as navigation for a pop music group composed of two people. Nothing here that can't be covered by links between the articles. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame - I was hoping this would be an "otheruses" type template for connection between articles of siblings born on the same day. Even that, though would have been of only marginal use. This one is equally redundant. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either change it to what Grut suggested, or Delete--Atlantima 20:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dialect

edit

Delete: This template is a lightly-modified copy of an old version of {{language}}. This latter template has been updated to provide greater flexibility to cover all articles on languages. The articles that were served by {{dialect}} have now been converted to {{language}}. Also, the distinction between language and dialect is a subjective one. Gareth Hughes 16:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free software

edit

Nasty thing in the first place; not used anymore. Ashibaka (tock) 19:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BC AD

edit

Do we really want such a warning on every page that uses BC? - SimonP 16:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Change to talk page template. The template is about editing, not about content, and asserts something like ownership of an article in an intrusive way. If BC/BCE is seen as a style issue that is up to the article's main editors to decide, it is enough to put this in the text as a comment (like some pages have a "use en-UK spelling" on top, as a comment). Kusma (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this template and don't think it is all that bad...I think it would even come in handy because half of the articles I've viewed today were changed to BCE/CE wrongly. I don't necessarily care one way or the other though. Chooserr
    • Perhaps it could be turned into a talk page template, one to be used in place of the messages you are currently leaving there? - SimonP 18:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's possible...how would you do that though? Chooserr
    • I understand what you want to do, and have changed my vote accordingly. I still stand by my suggestion that this kind of style comments should be in edit box comments, not on the article page. Kusma (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the only real solution to stylistic differences such as this would be more so-called wikimagic, (in the same way that [[December 3]] and [[3 December]] render as December 3 and 3 December). Propose a software update. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creators do not have ownership here. And this is no different than a template which says "The creator is of this article uses American spellings, so you must, too". Maybe we need a software update, or a style rule, but this isn't the way to deal with the issue. -- Dpark 20:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The original usage is in most cases not the the controling factor, it is suewd only when no other decision criterion applies, according to the MOS. Even then a long persiod of usage should IMO be more significant than the original version, if the change was early. This tempalte impolies a level of control by the articel creator that does not and should not exist. DES (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This tag attempts to enforce a nonexistent policy. I knew as soon as I read the nomination that it was created by Chooserr. This individual was blocked for his 3RR violations involving changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD, unblocked on the condition that he promise not to make such edits for 24 hours, and re-blocked when he violated this agreement. 28 minutes later, he created a sock puppet (confirmed to have logged in via the same IP address}, and continued to make the same edits/reversions (along with other non-NPOV edits and reversions) via that account and various anonymous IP addresses on the same network. This behavior continues. —Lifeisunfair 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Predsokratovci

edit

Delete: Unused template written in a foreign language, full of non-English spelling redlinks. Kusma (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If equal call et al.

edit

=====Template:If defined call===== Subst and delete, same thing can be done generic way →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Subst and delete, same thing can be done generic way →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Subst and delete, same thing can be done generic way →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Subst and delete, same thing can be done generic way →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If non-empty call1

edit

Delete or userfy, only used once →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Livestock 2004

edit

I don't see why this needs to be a template. --Hottentot 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DP

edit

[obscenity removed] template. Delete both this and the useless Template:Vutprotected.McBeer 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination should only be considered to include {{DP}}. Given the user's history, I have removed the nomination of {{Vutprotected}} as almost certainly in bad faith. -- SCZenz 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities of World

edit

It's just a list of big cities and Asian big cities --Hottentot 19:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:nmc

edit

Speedy delete template, covered basically in {{nonsense}} and {{empty}}, so its not needed.

Just a comment, I'm not going to say delete or keep. I do use it a lot, but that doesn't mean that it follows the CSD. I problably should of thought of that before I created it. Quentin Pierce 20:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't add anything not covered by other templates. (By the way, linking into a userspace subpage to explain the reason is bad form.) -- Dpark 20:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisambigSan

edit

Delete: Unused. Part of a proposed scheme that never caught on (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/archive4#Series boxes for geographical dab pages). Bo Lindbergh 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisambigSanta

edit

Delete: Unused. Part of a proposed scheme that never caught on (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/archive4#Series boxes for geographical dab pages). Bo Lindbergh 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Battles

edit

Delete: Obsolete, first by {{battlebox}} and now by {{warbox}}. No longer in use. Geoff/Gsl 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National University of Ireland

edit

Delete: Obsolete, not used for some time and also replaced by Template:IrishUni and Category:National University of Ireland. Djegan 18:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Only four Irish universities are National Universities of Ireland. It is not at all obsolete. Stifle 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To expand on my reason for deletion the template has not being used since the infoboxes in the National University of Ireland and four constituent universities were created as their is simply no place to fit this template in the articles in a uniform and organised way. Template:IrishUni was a defacto replacement as it contains all neccessary links required for the National University of Ireland. Why have two templates (of which this one is obsolete) when you can have one comprehensive template? Djegan 19:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keep comment seems to have missed the point of the new template, so I'm going to delete the old one. -Splashtalk 05:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navarre

edit

Delete: The template reproduces a list of villages and towns from List of municipalities in Navarre and Category:Navarre - right now it's far too large and unwieldy, and will only get more useless if all 272 towns are added. Ziggurat 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gipuzkoa

edit

Delete: The same situation as Template:Navarre above; reproduced from List of municipalities in _Guipúzcoa. There are too many towns in the region (88) to make a template a useful addition. Ziggurat 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 20:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Araba

edit

Delete: The same situation as Template:Navarre above; reproduced from List of municipalities in Álava. There are too many towns in the region (51) to make a template a useful addition. Ziggurat 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Royal Dublin Fusiliers

edit

Delete: Template no longer in use - only links that this now generates are to Wikipedia:Templates with red links and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates. BD2412 T 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fordgallery

edit

Delete: Unused template is nothing more than a gallery of images - which, my understanding is, we don't do. BD2412 T 14:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:NBAteams

edit

Delete and Subst to National Basketball Association: Primarily only used on that article. Its original purpose was taken over by Template:NBA. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've already replaced this template with a table on the NBA page, so this template can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dknights411 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as obsolete. BD2412 T 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Movie (2,3,4)

edit
Template:Infobox Movie (2)
edit
Template:Infobox Movie (3)
edit
Template:Infobox Movie (4)
edit

Delete: Template:Infobox Movie is made generic. →AzaToth 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islands of Pacific Ocean

edit

Delete: Huge unused navigation template, only partially translated. Has only had maintenance (disambiguation link repair) edits for the last year. Kusma (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Microsoft

edit

Delete: I don't think we need a template to link to Corporation and Board of Directors, articles only exist for three of the ten people linked from this template, and the annual revenue / employees / stock symbols / etc. belong in the Microsoft article itself. And is there really a strong need to link between the various "Assets & Products" in articles which don't already contain these links, and how huge would the template become if it ever even came close to listing all of Microsoft's assets and products? I really don't see any need for this template.- Brian Kendig 15:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree with you if the people included in this template merely "happen to work for a company". However, the individuals in this template are the members of the board of directors of the company, and that entity has final governing authority over the operations of the corporation. Annual revenue is an excellent measure of the resources of a company, and so should be in the navigational template. Including it gives readers of articles about the company's directors a clear, quantitative indicator of the amount of resources under the collective discretion of the company's board. Kurieeto 23:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please elaborate - Why is it currently not useful, and what would improve it? Kurieeto 20:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Split. The fact that 30 templates violate template guidelines is not justification for any of their existence. Note that the split is best responded to by categorization and deletion. Phil Sandifer 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article subject to vandalism

edit

Another template that makes much ado about vandalism. We shouldn't be putting such things on the top of articles, since it directly discredits them. I considered speedying this, but thought better of it. Delete. -Splashtalk 21:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the problem is that its useless. A notice threatening users not to vandalize a page is not very professional and won't stop anonymous users from vandalizing. Vandalism is becoming less of a problem at Wikipedia because so many people are reverting vandalism and on patrol at Special:Recent Changes. Even if a page does get vandalized a lot (like the Michael Jackson page), it is always reverted very quickly. — Wackymacs 14:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about that? I watched George W. Bush for a while, both when it had the comment and when it didn't. I don't think the comment helped deter vandalism; the fact that users plainly won't be getting 48hr blocks for vandalising a heavily-vandalised article (remember, it's the user, not the article, that counts) also degrades the value of the tag. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stargate

edit

Delete. An ancient Stargate template, now replaced by {{StargateTopics}}. Staxringold 23:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not precisely ancient, used until a couple of minutes ago. Voting keep for the moment (see what the Stargate editors like), and anyway I think editing {{Stargate}} would have been easier than writing a new template and deleting the old one. Kusma (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's exactly why I'm calling it ancient. The stargate technology has slowly been deleted (it was only linked on a little over 20 of ALL of the Stargate pages) and the recent culling brought on by someone adding a really long See Also list made it clear we needed an updated template. I felt that a new template (we'd have to link a majority of pages anyways, as they didn't have Stargate) that left Template:Stargate open for a more basic template was better. Staxringold 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Dpark 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

edit

Infobox Movie sub templates

edit

Template:Infobox Movie/movie language, Template:Infobox Movie/release date, Template:Infobox Movie/runtime, Template:Infobox Movie/tagline, Template:Infobox Movie/cinematography, Template:Infobox Movie/editing, Template:Infobox Movie/director, Template:Infobox Movie/image, Template:Infobox Movie/movie name, Template:Infobox Movie/original story by, Template:Infobox Movie/screenplay by, Template:Infobox Movie/budget, Template:Infobox Movie/distributor, Template:Infobox Movie/imdb id, Template:Infobox Movie/music, Template:Infobox Movie/producer and Template:Infobox Movie/starring

Speedy Deletion — have been superseded and are unused, where used only a couple of days →AzaToth 21:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since no one's answered to the original templates listed for deletion here:Delete, they're unused and duplicates of templates that still exist with simpler wording. - Bobet 14:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Actually, I looked a bit closer, and it seems a lot of films still use (or at least link to) these, even though the current infobox film has been changed. Delete them only after someone's touched the linking film pages so that they use the newer version of the infobox template and the data won't just disappear for no reason. - Bobet 21:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've stumbled on one major problem with these sub- or meta-templates - residual linking. Until each article is "touched" or edited, the links (database) table will still show it in Whatlinkshere - but those links are phantoms. All the more reason to get rid of them. In any case, I've run a script and "touched" the articles. Please reconsider your vote. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (revised)[reply]
  • Delete all sub-templates. -- 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok thanks, Delete based on my original reasoning, since no page uses them and even if someone ever changed back to using meta-templates, these wouldn't be the ones used. -Bobet 14:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Districts in Switzerland by canton

edit

Delete: Unnecessary duplication of Districts of Switzerland. Kusma (討論) 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brewbox seasonal beers

edit

Delete: I created this template. It is no longer in use because Template:Brewbox beers now has a defaulted parameter allowing any string (including "Seasonal") to be used in place of "Active". Mike Dillon 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political parties

edit

Comment: This was previously marked for speedy deletion but does not qualify as such, and thus has been moved here to TFD. Currently its "what links here" is empty. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GMA Network

edit

Delete. This template is not used, and contain mostly red-links. --Sherool (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Movie (Elvis Presley)

edit

Delete. This template is not needed. Instead all movie pages should be uniform with infobox movie template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Eifert (talk • contribs) 1:53, 8 December 2005

If we make an exception for the King, then we should have Sean Connery info box, Beatles Movies Info Box... Steve-O 08:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't especially see a problem with that, but you'll notice also that the point of my vote isn't making an exception for the King but for the fact that this box is substantially different from the one you replaced it with. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aargau Communes

edit

Delete: Unused and unusable, more a list than a template, no substantial edits. Same content in much prettier form is in Municipalities of the canton of Aargau. Kusma (討論) 02:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If template

edit

Delete, have been superseeded by <noinclude> and <includeonly> →AzaToth 23:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If else

edit

Speedy Delete, unneeded, unused template, only used on a missplaced user test template Template:Ausir test →AzaToth 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

edit

Template:Under construction

edit

Penniless orphan. Also a dupe of {{underconstruction}}. Ashibaka tock 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikipediaFAQBottom

edit

Completely redundant with Template:WikipediaFAQ. Renata3 19:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I agree that there is a duplication of information going on here, but the placement, layout, and purpose are different. I think this is useful to have because if I, for example, read through a help page idly – just, you know, out of interest – and then reach the end and ask myself, "okay, what else am I curious about?", then it is more useful to have those links at the bottom of the help page instead of having to scroll back up (some help pages are quite long). Some help pages have both this template and Template:WikipediaFAQ, and I also think that usage is justified. --Qirex 11:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the two templates do serve two slightly different purposes, one can still scroll to the top. Also, the template at the top is cleaner and more organized than the template at the bottom. SujinYH 04:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F Anonymex

edit

delete. Personal cruft. mikka (t) 04:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Tsd

edit

Delete: A template for speedy deletion candidates that are templates. According to a short discussion on the talk page of TfD and the official directions, the proper procedure is to orphan and add {{db|reason}}. Wcquidditch | Talk 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Jewishhistory

edit

Delete this orphan that has never been used and is not linked to anything but itself. IZAK 10:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lada class submarine

edit

Delete: Only one link, to Russian submarine B-100 Sankt Petersburg, which doesn't exist. Not needed until someone makes an article and/or the submarine put into service. kallemax 08:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Camp Lazlo Season 1

edit

Speedy Delete: Unneeded, replicates info at Episodes of Camp Lazlo, Season 1; not used on any pages. Also poorly cobbled together from a Simpsons infobox template. Slicing 06:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong (if not speedy) delete, only truly, very notable shows need such season infoboxes. I agree it was poorly built from a Simpsons infobox, there is still a link to the list of Simpsons episodes! This should never be used. --Wcquidditch | Talk 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

edit

Template:Infobox television (current/past cast)

edit

Delete: I had made this back in April 2005, but has been not used in any articles. This was made as a way for displaying shows that have current cast splitted up with former cast. For example, Stephanie March, Michelle Hurd and Dean Winters (former cast) vs. Chris Meloni Mariska Hargitay (current cast) on L&O:SVU. [2] Roadrunner3000 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meatpuppet

edit

A really bad idea. This template could only be used for newbie-biting, and would escalate AfD disputes into userspace. rspeer 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In violation of the spirit of goodwill Wikipedia stands for (and the specific policies that seek to protect it).--Eloquence 19:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's also no reason I can see to tag the pages of meatpuppets, because by definition they aren't going to stay around. If they do stick around, they aren't a meatpuppet anymore. Meatpuppets are single-use accounts, and they are best marked as such in the one place they are contributing (such as an AFD) rather than on their user page. No opinion on deletion, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. mikka (t) 19:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. While the two sometimes are difficult to distinguish between, meat puppetry is not the same thing as sock puppetry. If Wikipedian123 (a nonexistent user, as of this posting) were to invite a friend to register a Wikipedia account for the purpose of voting to support his/her position, that would be an example of meat puppetry. It would not, however, mean that this friend should be labeled "a disruptive meatpuppet of Wikipedian123." Unlike the term "sock puppet" (which, by definition, is an account created by an existing user — a condition that cannot change), the term "meat puppet" is not a permanent designation; it applies strictly to the specific situation(s) in which the meat puppetry occurs. And of course, many instances of meat puppetry are good faith efforts by users entirely unfamiliar with the concept. —Lifeisunfair 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I've deleted this template, because Firebug, the creator and sole contributor of the template, marked it for speedy deletion. As such, consider this debate closed.--Sean|Black 20:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comment Guidelines

edit

Merge/Delete: Redundant when {{talkheader}} is available. It also doesn't seem to fit the visual style used by other talk page templates (color, size). Finally, {{talkheader}} is in use on over 500 articles, while this template is in use on less than 50. Better to merge anything of value from this into the more widely used template and call it good. =) Locke Cole 12:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to save the closing admin some orphaning. Phil Sandifer 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ina

edit

Delete: Apart from being poorly formatted (which is fixable), it is not actually useful. If an administrator is contacting a user to tell them their name is inappropriate, the user is owed a full and complete explanation of what, exactly is wrong. That can be done on a talk page, without a template. As near as I can tell, the creator of this template has been using it to inappropriately threaten users with fairly innocuous usernames that he feels are inappropriate. Nandesuka 07:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

edit

Template:United Federation of Planets infobox

edit

Delete a year old, not used and only edited once (disambig fix) after it's creation. Clearly not needed. --Sherool (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler2

edit

Delete. We don't need a "bolder more visible version of the spoiler tag." We need one uniform design. Given the controversial nature of this issue, any potential changes to the long-standing appearance should be discussed at Template talk:Spoiler. Thus far, all such proposals have failed to garner consensus. —Lifeisunfair 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The purpose of this template is to give readers the opportunity to avoid text that they don't wish to read. This is best accomplished my providing a consistent format to look out for. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, not an assortment of personal pages. What if one person were decide that he/she wants a blue "spoiler" template with yellow text, and someone else were decide that green with white text and a red icon is the way to go? If we allow each user to create a redundant "spoiler" template that suits his/her exact preferences, we'll end up with hundreds of these. —Lifeisunfair 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think consistency is of overriding importance; both templates serve the purpose of attracting the reader's attention to the presence of spoilers equally well. Allowing the general editing population to choose the template they prefer is likely to lead to most pages having the best possible template; I trust this process better than discussion between a handful of users at Template talk:Spoiler. Your slippery slope worries can be taken into account when the time comes; I doubt I'd vote keep for Template:Spoiler100. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. If the two templates "serve the purpose of attracting the reader's attention to the presence of spoilers equally well," why do we need both of them? 2. The community already has selected its preferred "spoiler" template. If it can be improved, that's precisely what should occur. We should not have two competing templates that serve exactly the same purpose. 3. what number of stylistic variations do you deem acceptable? Five? Ten? Fifty? Where should we draw the line? —Lifeisunfair 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Because why not have both of them? 2) What community? When did this happen? Perhaps you're confusing the few people who pay attention to what happens on template talk pages with the community, but the two are not the same; one includes perhaps 50 people, the other a few thousand. Frankly I think the idea that a couple dozen people on a talk page should dictate the appearance of every page that uses a spoiler warning is utterly absurd. 3) Who knows, however many seem reasonable going into the future. Probably not too many, as there isn't that much scope for functional variation. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already provided the reasoning behind my opinion that it's impractical to have a redundant template. Anyone capable of recognizing the fact that both of these templates exist (and preferring one over the other) is equally capable of expressing his/her opinion on a talk page (and is entirely welcome to do so). —Lifeisunfair 23:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, all of the suggested modifications merely made the tag uglier, without enhancing its performance in the slightest. Cyde's design is nicer, and might be a good idea — but not as a separate template. —Lifeisunfair 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if I happen to be the next person to edit an article containing this template? Would it be okay for me to switch to {{spoiler}}, and for the following person to switch back to {{spoiler2}}, et cetera? No one's opinion is sacrosanct, so who ultimately should decide which template to use? Do we really need yet another reason to revert war? —Lifeisunfair 23:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nominator. For a template like this, I believe it is imperative to keep a uniform design. K1Bond007 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - People can't seem to come to a consensus on what to make the spoiler template look like, so I don't see the harm in letting people choose what the spoiler tag should look like on the page they're editing. There is a wide variety in formatting and color schemes on Wikipedia already, and in some pages, especially TV series pages with lots of images, the vanilla spoiler warning tends to get lost. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when the TfD tag isn't in the noinclude section it gets on the pages that use the template and make them ugly. When a page is up for deletion you don't insert some annoying notice in everything that links to it. And it's kind of pointless to argue at the Spoiler talk page because they deal with that ONE version of the template, discounting any possible uses where you'd need a different-looking template. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 01:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. The tag is supposed to appear on the pages that use the template, thereby informing readers of the deletion debate. There are very few cases in which the disruption is significant enough to override this rule. 2. There shouldn't be second template to deal with. If we truly need a "different-looking" version, {{spoiler}} should be modified accordingly. —Lifeisunfair 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried updating the Spoiler template and that got reverted because it was "too conspicuous". I'm sorry, but if I'm using a spoiler warning on the pages I'm editing I want it to be conspicuous, you know, so people will actually see it. And your comment about "If you need something different-looking, just modify the current version" makes no sense. People are not allowing the current one to be modified, so there needs to be a second, higher-visibility version for pages that warrant it. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 02:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps if you were to present a well-reasoned explanation on the talk page (instead of announcing the creation of {{spoiler2}}), you'd succeed in building a consensus. If not, oh well; we can't always get what we want. Whether dealing with an article or a template, the solution to a content dispute is not to fork a separate version. You stated that "there needs to be a second, higher-visibility version for pages that warrant it," but you haven't explained why some pages deserve special treatment, nor have you specified who should decide which pages this describes. The answer can't logically be "the editor," because the next editor might disagree. Then what? —Lifeisunfair 02:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to quote you, if you will, as my justification as to what decides which template version is used: "Anyone capable of recognizing the fact that both of these templates exist (and preferring one over the other) is equally capable of expressing his/her opinion on a talk page (and is entirely welcome to do so)." --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me spell it out further. Your main objection seemed to be that "we don't need another reason for edit wars". I'm saying if there is a fuss over which version of the template to use it should be discussed on the talk page, not sent off to edit-war-dom. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main objection is the fact that it's a redundant template that creates unwarranted incongruity. Your suggestion is impractical; we don't need yet another issue to distract us from the task of compiling an encyclopedia. Do you propose that we conduct a poll on the talk page of every article for which two editors disagree over which template to use? —Lifeisunfair 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

edit

Template:GFW

edit

Why is wikipedia commanding the people from mainland China not read its article? This template is completely pointless and inapproriate. --Jiang 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely useless. -- Dpark 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history said "translated from Chinese", so I guess this comes from zh:Template:BlockByGFW, which is used in "External links" sections to warn that some links might be inaccessible to mainland readers due to censorship (and links to proxy server etc. so people learn how to possibly evade the block). Even assuming that that is the intent, I don't think we need this here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it actually means that PRC people may not be able to view the article, rather than saying that they aren't allowed to view the article. I'll change the wording to make it more clear. Borisblue 07:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute, how are Chinese users going to see this template if the article is blocked? D'oh. Striked out keep vote. Borisblue 07:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some discussion at zhwiki about the template. This template is useful to notify readers and editors that not everyone can view it, and if possible, prevent to use some "keyword" filtered by the Great Firewall to prevent to blocking. This is not "commanding the people from..." — Yaohua2000 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dubious whether this can be very accurately placed, and pretty useless regardless. Lord Bob 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. My insecure self think that this is more of a "hey eat this ChiCom, we're gonna announce to the world how evil you are" template than a truly informative one. People blocked by the GFW won't be able to see this template at all, and those who can prove this template wrong. Also, the GFW blocks the entire wikimedia site and all its sister sites (and I must imagine all the leechers too) so there doesn't exist a solution of not using certain "keywords" to bypass the GFW. If this template should survive deletion it should be pasted without fail to every single nook and cranny of Wikipedia. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: That sounds funny. But it is technically incorrect. Because Chinese government only block those wikimedia server in Korea, wikimedia DNS replies the IP of Korea server to those users in China, so people are not able to view wikimedia site. But if a user modify his DNS configuration, add some custom lines to /etc/hosts and redirect all requests to Korean servers to those servers in North America or Europe, it will be bypass the blocking. You can whois my current IP, it is from mainland China. This is so called third blocking of Wikipedia from China. But it is not the all of Great Firewall. Great Firewall uses keyword filter to prevent user view sensitive sites for normal websites, even if you modify hosts file and redirect the web request to servers not blocked, you have to face the keyword check. Unless you are over a secured connection. This software official named "金盾", it is reported that the techinical and hardware for the keyword filtering is from Cisco. —221.196.188.187 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Chinese to whom this warning applies won't be able to see it anyway, and those who can see it probably won't care as it doesn't affect them. —Psychonaut 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the user(s) above saying this is meant to tell people not to use certain keywords on certain articles... the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Nobody is going to tell me what words I can and cannot use. If the Chinese government doesn't like that, tough - maybe the Chinese people should get a new government. But that's not my problem, and it's not anyone else's problem on Wikipedia. Kafziel 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valuable to chinese readers and other interested parties. Sam Spade 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only article this template is currently in use on appears to be Falun Gong, and the Chinese government's attitude toward Falun Gong is clearly described in that article already. However, any Wikipedia article might be inaccessible to users in China (see Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China), so I don't see what the point of this template is. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 66.167.138.184 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Psychonaut. Andrew Levine 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should be used on every page. Also has a NPOV tone. Stevage 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anything is blocked for users in mainland China, it's all of Wikipedia, never individual articles--read our own articles on the relevant subjects. So, even all the other arguments aside, this serves no purpose whatsoever. EldKatt (Talk) 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's just anti-Chinese govt propaganda. Dan100 (Talk) 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future game/yearcvg

edit

No idea what is this template. CG 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current Holiday

edit

This template implicates that every ongoing holiday should be tagged with a Current event template, which is not the case. On every Christmas holiday or Ramadan month the respective articles don't become current events. In addition, this template is not used. CG 21:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Capitalist

edit

Delete: Created this by accident and miscommunication. Kross | Talk 08:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference

edit

Delete Not used anywhere, seems to be redundant with {{Heartland Conference}}. --Sherool (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHSUB

edit

Delete: Template does nothing more than add article to a category (Category:Subdivisions of Switzerland) and add irrelevant text to the article page Mike5904 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2004

edit

Delete seems to be created by mistake, reads like the opening of a bio. Not used and not edited since December 2004. --Sherool (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PC

edit

Delete: Do we really need templates for four articles relating to one brand that is only sold in one country? The name is ambiguous, since it could just as well be about personal computers or political correctness, and the template is unused. (Note: A template with the same name was deleted in July, but that template seems to have been about political correctness) Aecis praatpaal 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fancruft

edit

Unused, does not warn of something that actually violates any written policies, is generally just a very dumb idea. Phil Sandifer 17:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fictional animals cat

edit

Delete: First, this template is large and almost all of the entries are in alphabetical order. Second, it is currenty only used on category pages, no articles – thus redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UKUSA Community

edit

Delete: This template was used only on the UKUSA Community article, and I've subst'ed it there already. It has no potential to be used elsewhere. NormanEinstein 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BostonInfoBox

edit

Delete: It's a template used for only one article, namely Boston, Massachusetts. Furthermore, it's sufficiently the same as Template:Infobox City. Plus, Infobox City is nicely standard. --Mark Adler (Markles) 12:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Afd-noconsensus

edit

Delete. An article is either deleted or kept. The failure to reach a consensus does not reduce an article to a lower status, and we already place notices on the corresponding talk pages. —Lifeisunfair 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Why would an AFD result of "no consensus" have any bearing on whether or not someone would want to read an article? → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exposes too much of the workings of Wikipedia to the casual reader. Also, as per nom and the guy with the big sig above me. :) FreplySpang (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives the false impression that "no consensus" is not functionally "keep", which it is. Other templates already allow one to note that the result was "no consensus". Also, the "You may wish to take this into consideration when deciding whether or not to read this article." is horrifyingly POVed and presumptive. -Silence 14:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed by the link to the deleted page notice, which invites the reader to pretend that the page has been deleted and protected. —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Delete: Unused template with no apparent use. BD2412 T 02:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Correction

edit

Delete. From the newbie that brought us {{spoiler3}} comes {{correction}}, a template used to sign articles (and take credit for specific corrections), as seen here and here. —Lifeisunfair 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a template: If there's a mistake, fix it!--Sean|Black 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ironic how "corection" is mis-spelled there. BD2412 T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 →AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. This style of editing is severely inappropriate, and the creation of a template to edit articles this way is ridiculous:
    1. Article mistakes should be fixed.
    2. Conflicting opinions should be resolved on talk pages.
    3. The template consists of almost zero code, and therefore does not actually make any kind of editing, disruptive or not, easier. This strikes me as a deliberate attempt to legitimise the edits.
    4. The way in which the user signs their name to these corrections runs contrary to Wikipedia policy.
--Qirex 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler3

edit

Delete. Another spoiler template. Yuck! It uses the text-hiding method (which is listed on the spoiler warning guideline page as an "unacceptable alternative"). —Lifeisunfair 01:17/01:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Album_infobox_2

edit

It's time to put this one out of its misery. If the discussion when this deletion was first proposed wasn't (quite) convincing (archived here [4] ), the choices of active editors are now clear. So far this month, for example, it's been used in only 14 new album articles; in contrast, the standard template has been used in more than 750. Overall, this template is currently used in just under 750 articles, while the standard template is used in nearly 10,000. Since nobody's made an argument against a uniform infobox style in album articles, and the preference of active editors is overwhelmingly clear, I can't see any reason not to Delete (with whatever cleanup of the existing use is required). Monicasdude 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about just setting it as a REDIRECT? There wouldn't be need for any cleanup. --Tokle 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
agreed - but just maybe the new version should superceed the earlier. Kevinalewis 09:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Not used. – Adrian | Talk 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S

edit

Delete: Only used to present a Unicode character. Wikiacc (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Language link; also equivalent Template:Ll

edit

Subst and delete: Worse than useless. Doesn't save significant typing; is supposed to be always used with subst, but often isn't; confuses newbie editors; if subst is used then the template doesn't even save any typing. Equivalent Template:Ll is absolutely mystifying to newbie editors when used without subst. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the inappropriateness of this template is underlined by the hideous way this is showing up in articles now that I tagged it with {{tfd}}: most of the time it's sitting in the middle of prose. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I changed {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix that issue. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AustraliaGov

edit

Template:SummersEve

edit

Template:Parappa

edit

Template:Lowercase-Apple

edit

Delete, and put all articles with this template back into {{lowercase}}.: This is template-creep. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK A

edit

This and Template:UK B don't appear to be used. Their function is to convert code such as {{UK A|50}} to [[A50 road|A50]], a saving of 5 characters for a two-digit road (and no saving at all if used with subst:). I'm nominating it for deletion because bulk use of this template (such as this previous version of List of B roads in Great Britain) would seem to be unnecessary server load. sjorford (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Both templates created by User:SPUI - I would have posted a note on his talk page, but I don't think I want to tread in it. ;) sjorford (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK B

edit

Please see the discussion of Template:UK A above.

Template:ContraSub

edit

Delete. Unlike templates such as {{disputed}} and {{pov}}, this tag is intended to permanently reside within "controversial" articles, warning users against editing without prior discussion (a very un-wiki instruction). Thus far, it's been added to Pedophilia and Gay Nigger Association of America. While these obviously are controversial subjects, the same is true of countless other topics (particularly those of a political or religious nature). Should we be branding all such articles with this template? We already have {{controversial}} for talk pages, and it's entirely inappropriate for a similar (actually stricter, because {{controversial}} merely instructs users to read the talk page before editing) tag to encroach upon the actual articles. —Lifeisunfair 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Church and Template:Vatican

edit

Template:Lennonist

edit

Delete. As is noted on the talk page, this is just a duplicate of Template:User lennonist. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phnom Penh infobox

edit

Already merged: Single-use template, already merged into article. Golbez 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self-rule

edit

Doesn't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stars

edit

Adds an extra three levels of metatemplate cruft to album infoboxes, solely to add alt text to an image (which is already there in many cases, sometimes in superior form). If the alt text is that important, it can be added by a bot. —Cryptic (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm all for getting the proper alt-text but this is not the way (bot?). Using the switch and the template is a needless waste of resources. This template is not likely to change... we are not likely going to get new stars (if we did we'd just change the image anyways) so I see no use to this template. gren グレン 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong KEEP!. I've seen this start to be flowed onto Album infoboxes. All it is, is an easier way to flow ratings from AllMusic.com and elsewhere into the infobox. Never throw oout something useful, it would be like replacing the hatch on a submarine with a screen door, or replacing the healthy food in your fridge with junk food. --Cjmarsicano 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, please spare our servers the torture, and help fix it instead. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. In terms of usability, it seems much easier to me, especially the way you type for a half star: {{stars|2.5}} instead of [[Image:2hv stars out of 5.png|2.5 stars out of 5]], which always felt very unintuitive. Very few people bother with typing alternate text, because editing gets done by imitation (for the most part) and no-one else is doing it. Imitation isn't that hard to master, so I'm not very moved by the argument that it is a burden to learn a handful of characters worth of syntax. I'm equally unmoved by the fact that "almost all of them [placed] by User:ScudLee" – he attempted to discuss the idea at Project albums talk page, no one objected or even responded really, and no-one else really bothered about the work as much as he did. However, if there is an extra burdon on servers then that's not good, but I can't really comment on that aspect because I wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Could we use subst: to get around this problem? Having read the talk page for the template, it's quite clear that subst will be much worse than just typing out [[Image:..]] --Qirex 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, shouldn't the TFD notice go on the template talk page so as not to screw up all those infoboxes?? See for example To the Extreme --Qirex 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only way some people will even know this template is up for deletion is if the notice is on the template itself (not the talk page). I moved it from the talk page so it would, hopefully, get a fair shake here at TfD.. (otherwise, it's possible it would get deleted without a proper debate). Yes it makes it ugly, but plenty of other templates face TfD and deal with the ugly factor; it's an effective means of informing editors that a template they might use is being considered for deletion. (Now if only IfD had a way of superimposing a notice over an image when it's up for deletion...) —Locke Cole 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The template is one of the best ideas that I've seen in a while, and yet you're considering it for deletion? --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not useful enough to justify the expense.--Sean|Black 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Creator). There is a secondary purpose to this template which I neglected to mention when I created it. My intention from the start was to replace the existing stars with images of my own. These images have a transparent interior, allowing the actual color of the stars to be decided by the background of a surrounding span tag. This is only really feasible if it is handled within a template. Because they have a different appearance to the current stars, I was going to do the switchover once I'd replaced all usages, to maintain consistency, that, perhaps, was a mistake. - Lee (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not just the template, but because it only works on 5 stars. If it were to work for 3/4 or 8/10 it would be a std approach to handling ratings. KittenKlub 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Largely on the strength of the strain on the servers, this becomes "Expense" which should be avoided, except for Real benefit. Tha's not quite the right way to put it, functionally this is a really good idea, but so is KittenKlub's (see last post). Personally the I believe the whole thing should be rethought and the issue of star ratings of different number base's included in the reworking. Ratings out of 10 are very common and should be allowed for, please come up with a more comprehensive solution (i.e. various start ratings) but with minimal server impact. Kevinalewis 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be fairly trivial to introduce a second parameter to handle the total number of stars without breaking current usage (it can default to 5). It would mean drawing even more images to handle all the cases, but other than that, that doesn't present a problem. - Lee (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can do all that and remove the need for the metatemplate you would provide the holy grain of star rating templates! Kevinalewis 11:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's easy enough to learn new syntax if it's for the good as far as the servers go. I'm a new user but would be happy to copy others' use of the new (or old) syntax. Crazyale 12:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.—thegreentrilby 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This info box is truely a good way to link to AMG, a standard music service. Makenji-san 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, and per WP:AUM. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I have now eliminated the {{switch}} templates. This template no longer includes any other templates. Please consider revising your comments above to reflect the new situation. I have also remove the TfD notice from the template itself to minimize server load (can {{tfd}} be substed?). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a change of vote - although not moving beyond the 5 star basis, this is now NOT a metatemplate. So arguements on that basis have lost all relevance to this template. Purhaps someone will generate the other base star ratings in time. Thanks—Ilmari Karonen - Kevinalewis 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: isn't it still effectively a metatemplate since it gets placed inside a template? Or, is it not a metatemplate now because it doesn't, itself, contain a template? --Qirex 01:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was never a meta-template, as described at WP:AUM (although it used to contain a couple). Meta-templates are templates used within another template, whilst Stars is used directly in articles. The fact that it's usually passed as a parameter in {{Album infobox}} is (AFAIK) neither here nor there. Edits to Stars don't, for example, automatically invalidate the cache of every page that contains Album infobox, just the ones with the stars template in them (like any other template). - Lee (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Republicanism

edit

Delete: Impossible topic to be actively NPOV with and guaranteed to produce endless edit wars over who is a real republican party and who isn't (Republican Sinn Féiners and Sinn Féiners will fight about each others' true republicanism for a start, while Fine Gael, a pro-Commonwealth party in the 1940s, actually declared the Republic of Ireland some would argue should be in on that basis), what linear links join what organisation (were the Officials marxist or republican), whose analysis is valid/invalid/biased, etc. Also inaccurate in many places - Griffith was a monarchist. Connolly wanted a socialist republic not a nationalist republic. Why is Bobby Sands in but Sean MacBride out in the list of "key figures"? How key is Sands anyway? What about Sean MacStiofáin? Cathal Goulding? Sean Lemass? The topic is far too complicated and already provokes too many edit wars across a range of articles without adding a template full of questionable presumptions and definitions, most of them POV, into the mix. This is one template due an early trip to the wiki-bin.

  • delete FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV magnet, topic is too broad for a template of this type.--Sean|Black 01:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May provoke edit wars, but we can manage with things like fasicsm... -- Jbamb 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: if you want Sean MacStiofain add him, when I made it I made it clear it was just the skeleton of a template and that it should be added to, I didn't want it as my creation, the many pages that relate to Irish Republicanism have no coherent order at all, this Template could go some way to bringing a bit of order. Communism has a Template, with POV issues all the time, why not delete that too eh? How about the Anarchism one, that's a really broad topic too, send it to the wiki-bin? Escobar600ie 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wildly POV part of the provo claim to be the true faith descendents of the War of Independence. --Red King 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lapsed Pacifist 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV.--File Éireann 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change. It makes sense to have a template for Irish Republican organisations. Other political ideologies have one, so why not Irish republicanism? However, it should definitely be removed from articles on the war of independence, civil war, the troubles and other historical events. These have a much wider importance in Irish history than merely the activities of one strain of Irish political thought. If no one objects, I'm going to do this. Also, the content of the template needs to be changed. Earlier organisations like the United Irishmen should go in for example, so should Clann na Phoblachta, the Republican Congress etc. Also, the list of people should be removed, because it will be impossible for people who agree on who goes in. Jdorney 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had some misgivings of this when it appeared first. As pointed out previously I could see this turning into a pov quagmire of who is the one, true faith. Djegan 19:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. The idea that this could become a quagmire isn't the most compelling reason to delete. I also take issue with some of the alleged inaccuracies. Griffith started out as a monarchist, but can you really argue that when he took his seat in Dail Eireann he was still one then? Likewise whether Connolly was a socalist republican or a nationalist one, he was still a republican. But I do see issues arising as to who gets into the template. Why not Tom Clarke or John Devoy? It could certainly be problematical, but I'm not entirely convinced it doesn't deserve a chance. -R. fiend 20:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering the pov-warriors and clear out lunatics we get editing the articles under this template to serve their own POV, or in some cases, completely fantastical alternate histories, there isn't a chance in hell that such a template could be NPOV, ever. --Kiand 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any non-POV version of this template would have to be so broadly inclusive as to be meaningless. --Ryano 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hideous, doesn't add anything. -- Daily 22: 38, 23 December

2005 Keep it in, if it upsets the book burners, it must be a good thing.

Template:Db-crystalball

edit

Used for speedy deletion on grounds that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". But that is not in fact a criterion for speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

edit

Template:Early Muslim conflicts

edit

Listing for Zora. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands this template really gets in the way. If it's kept, which I think right now is a bad idea, it should be made much smaller and so it is put at the bottom of articles. We have battle boxes which are supposed to go where Striver has put it. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • i also agree that it should be deleted. at the very least, someone needs to edit it, as it has numerous grammar and spelling errors (why are there no apostrophes?!). but moreover, i'm just not sure how the template really adds anything. Dgl 11:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really know much about the topic, but if it makes sense to group them together, I don't see why not have it. Further, the complaint about the apostrophes is trivial, I have just fixed that. –Andyluciano 19:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "them" that are being grouped are highly heterogeneous. They aren't all "conflicts", for one thing. The Hijra was not a conflict. Succession to Muhammad was a political struggle, but not a battle. Treaties aren't conflicts! The timeline is also undefined. After complaining to the creator of the template, who is a Shi'a Muslim, that ending the template with the Battle of Karbala was POV, he added one other revolt. But why stop there? Why not everything that happened during the Umayyad caliphate? Also, even with the punctuation problems fixed, there are still red links, mispellings, etc. We have one editor weighing in here, Dgl, who has a master's degree in Islamic studies. He wrote the article on the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. If he thinks this template is useless, it's useless. We already have extensive interlinking between Islamic history articles, plus an article on Islamic history, plus a timeline of Islamic history. That's enough to orient readers. Zora 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If all that is needed is a chronological list of battles, the proper way to do it is via a campaignbox template. —Kirill Lokshin 21:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zora. Pepsidrinka 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use the campaignbox, Luke. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Warbox or Campaignbox can replace it. Roy Al Blue 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Police Officer

edit

Seems a tad too specific. Only used on two articles, which are themselves up for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 09:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox BridgeSpecificWithMap

edit

Duplicates main Template:Infobox Bridge now that support for the map was made optional. Was only used on four articles, so I moved them to Infobox Bridge. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

edit

Template:PureStates

edit

Delete: "Pure" states? Anyway, not used. dbenbenn | talk 03:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Equatorial Guinea infobox

edit

Delete: This template seems to be a copy of the infobox in article Equatorial Guinea and is apparently not used anywhere. Thuresson 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flensburg infobox

edit

Delete unused and redundant with {{Infobox Town DE}} --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Proprietary Software

edit

Delete: Obsolete by {{Infobox Software}}. - David Björklund (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

edit

Template:User UT-Austin

edit

Delete: This template is redundant; one serving the same purpose already exists at Template:User_longhorn. -Rebelguys2 09:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. -Scm83x 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created in error, unaware of existing template. Mea Culpa.1001001 10:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gigem Aggies! I mean uhm, yeah ...its a duplicate, thats it! --Naha|(talk) 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack on population center

edit

Delete: It is a redundant template - the only two articles that used it now use the Template:Infobox Military Conflict. Loopy 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing preventing you from adding civilian casualties to {{Infobox Military Conflict}}; see Battle of Stalingrad, for example. —Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I speak for vast majority of the world's civilians when I say that the most important thing about any military conflict is whether civilians were vicitims of it. Therefore it is just and proper that the template heading display that information. Plus, Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict provides much less detailed information. I can't believe that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is being suggested as a serious alternative to Template:Attack on population center --James S. 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into philosophical issues here, I still don't see how the older template is better; it has the exact same casualties fields as the new one. —Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between the two templates is the design. Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is a flexible infobox that can be used to represent anything from a war, to a battle, to a mass slaughter of military or civilians, to any kind of conflict you would like to put in. I'm not really sure how you can argue that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is much less detailed than Template:Attack on population center when, as Kirill Lokshin pointed out above, they're precisely the same... --Loopy 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mos4

edit
  • Delete as per nom. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. violet/riga (t) 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-word to align with Mos3, and re-word to make intention clearer, and note that this template applies only to changes that do nothing except deliberately deviate from MoS. Any edit that adds content does not count. Neonumbers 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- after all, the MoS itself contradicts this template in the first paragraph. Neonumbers has a point, though...--SarekOfVulcan 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't block good editors over style issues. Firebug 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, or Fix and Rename. "Those rules are mandatory" it says, in direct contradiction to the MoS itself (see Template:Mosblock discussion above). If it said "Those guidelines are optional, but should only be altered for good reason, with consensus. Edits deliberately against consensus may be considered vandalism, and result in you being blocked." then I might support keeping it under the name Mos2, so long as it was never used as a substitute for discussion, and never used in contradiction to WP:AGF. There is absolutely no need for Mos3 or Mos4, just use the vandalism templates. Aumakua 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl The arbitration ruling makes sense if one takes principle 2.2 to mean that the contents of the MoS are changeable and not set in stone. Kelly Martin is correct in alluding to the instances in which MoS guidelines are contradictory and thus may have to be ignored and/or modified with good reason. Her comments are well-reasoned as usual. However, principle 2.2 does not negate the possibility of violations of the MoS guidelines that do reach the level of vandalism. For example, if an editor goes against consensus on a universally accepted principle of the MoS in order to push a POV or to harass other editors, it is clear vandalism, and the user should be blocked. 172 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template is blatantly incorrect, and would not be necessary if 'twere correct. This is legalism gone mad. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Along with its bretheren, contradicts the MoS. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk1

edit

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk2

edit

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pulmed Basilisk

edit

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

edit

Template:Battlebox no campaign

edit

Delete: No longer used, deprecated by Template:Infobox Military Conflict. —Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

edit

Template:Footer UN Secretary-General

edit

Compelety unused. The infobox provides predecessor/sucessor links. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UNSecGen

edit

Too specific. There are only seven of them, and I've moved them to use the more generic Template:Infobox Person. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dichotomouskey

edit

Redundant with the very flexible Template:Wikibookspar. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 6

edit

Possibly unused redirect (I do not know how to check that for shure, due to the possibly incomplete "what links here" list) to Template:Web reference 3, which is barely used either (I intend to nominated that later too, needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language/Malayalam

edit

See below - identical template.

Template:MalayalamScript

edit

Performs the exact same function as the existing {{IndicText}}. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks?? The Malayalam template was presumably created after being vetted by the usual long process, now somebody summarily empties the category without so much as a by-your-leave?? I am speechless. ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I hope this is sarcasm. What vetting process do you speak of? This template was used on at most four pages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Best practice, and best intention is served by keeping the categorgy intact durign this process. wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I previously said really unclear? Template creation requires a long vetting process. So does deletion. When the process is defined, and debate here is ongoing, why did you (Sukh) take it upon yourself to empty the category? ImpuMozhi 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being blind, but I certainly don't see the 'long vetting process' that this template went into. And I merely changed the existing four uses of the template BACK to the original Indic template. It is a wiki after all... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having that warning in Devnagiri script will not serve the purpose. The 'Kerala' written in the page is in Malayalam script, which is no where close to the Devnagiri script. The people who can read 'Kerala' written in Malayalam script(and if that person doesn't know devnagiri script) will readily go and modyfying it(assuming his/her browser is not indic script compliant). Even with that warning some people try to correct it. I hope i have made my point clear.--Raghu 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in the current template is not in Devanagari, it is in Gurmukhi and it isn't meant to show every single possible Indic script (there could very well be hundreds of Brahmi descended scripts that the Indic text template is useful for). It's merely a VERY SIMPLE representative example and does not indicate that the script on the page must be Gurmukhi. What should we do for pages that contain, Malayalam, Devanagari and Gurmukhi? List three identical templates with different pictures!? How about pages that might list even more Indian languages and scripts?
The template talks about the technology to enable support for Indic scripts in general which applies just as much to Malayalam as it does to Gurmukhi, Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil etc. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the same principle to apply to all Indic scripts (which is only fair of course), we'd need at least 23 to account for all the ones currently encoded in Unicode. This does not include scripts YET to be encoded in Unicode. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My Answers
  • The difference between scripts of Devanagari and Gurumukhi is minor. Even i was able to understand Gurumukhi with a knowledge of Devanagari only.
  • Your point that it will necessitate 100's of template is not correct beacause all North Indian languages scripts are similar and most people who speak other north Indian languages like Punjabi, Gujarathi, Marathi and Bengali have a good knowlege of Hindi (and consequently Devanagari or the very similar gurumukhi script). So we are left with four South Indian langauges. Telugu and Kannada script are mutually intelligible. Tamil and Malayalam are pretty close but if needed we can have separate one for Tamil. so totally we need 4 templates.
  • If a page has more than one indic script? There are few pages like that. In case it is there use the generic Gurumukhi Template as more people will understand that.
  • If there exists a template which does the needed function in a better way. Why delete?
Regards--Raghu 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - The scripts are similar yes, but there is no way you would be able to decipher Gurmukhi characters when you know just Devanagari. Some characters are deceptively similar (e.g. Devanagari प /pa/ looks like Gurmukhi ਧ /dha/) while I do admit, some are similar in appearance. Also Gurmukhi has a special nasal sign called Tippi, it uses Adhak for geminates and it does not employ half forms. Gurmukhi departs in greater ways from Devanagari (from which it didn't descend) than some South Indian scripts do.
Point 2 - The picture is merely representative of the rendering technology (I picked it because it was the most simple representation of complex rendering). You can consider it to be a bit of a 'logo' and it could be replaced with a star, an asterisk or anything else to grab attention. You also fail to realise that Brahmic (Indic) scripts are not just the preserve of India, and Mongolian, Lao, Tibetan, Thai and others are visually very distinct and don't correspond to similarities in North/South Indian scripts. So how do you propose adding templates for these? Indeed what about many older scripts that come under the umbrella of complex text rendering?
Point 3 - But then what to do about all the people who in your opinion won't recognise it because it's in Gurmukhi? Surely the same problem occurs. Multiple Indic scripts are used on many pages already on Wikipedia, and this will only increase as time goes by.
Point 4 - This isn't in my opinion any better than the existing template. Indeed, the only reason I think it was made was because someone saw the Gurmukhi (or, Devanagari-esque) characters and deduced it may be some latent means of promoting North Indian scripts or languages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - You are missing the point. The alphabet shown in the image on the template 'Vi' to explain the concept is similar (I was able to decipher)to the one in Devanagari. Leave alone the rest of the difference you say there exist between the two.
Point 2 - I agree with you. It would need hard labour to do that in all Languages. If somebody is going to do that for some other languages, it would be really useful.
Point 3 - The 'many' pages you are talking about will be less than 2% of all pages containing indic texts. I already told what can be done about those pages.
Point 4 - that seems to be your POV. I can't help with that.
Regards --Raghu 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Gurmukhi one actually says 'ki' not 'vi'! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions are not the only thing provided my that. It also warns the innocent newbie users to not go ahead and try editing to make it look correct (this warning is provided inside the edit section as a comment but has proved to be not good enough, check the Chennai page to see how many corrections have taken place in the lst 200 edits or so. Atleast 5-6). This warning will be best when it is given in the native script of each language. The alphabet should also be chosen carefully like 'ka' for Kerala. 'Ma' for Tamil Nadu etc. It would simply be great if User:Sukh could design a template that would take an alphabet as the input and display it!!--Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the image with something neutral. The template could also be changed to take the language of the page and display it, in place of IndicText. See {{user wikipedia}} for an example. --Pamri • Talk 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a separate malayalam template doesn't hurt anyone, and to assume that Devanagari alone is the best symbol of Indic scripts is essentially Aryanocentric. --Soman 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to do with Devanagari on the entire IndicText template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I mistook it for a Devanagari 'vi'. Anyways, it hardly doesn't make my argument less valid. Why should Gurkmukhi get to represent all Indic scripts? Isn't that one of the latest inventions, out of which none of the other major scripts have emerged? --Soman 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't that one of the latest inventions" - more of a gradual evolution, but yes, maybe that is the reason? :D No, but seriously, we could replace it with a star, or something that doesn't show a particular script if that is the only reason people don't want to use this template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could even be replaced with an image of a Brahmi character. That is, after all, the mother script ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't give a damn. Guys, you are arguing about a warning template that will hopefully be obsolete in half a year, or whenever MS decides to fix their browser. Maybe we should delete both templates, and leave it to people to figure out their own browser instead of plastering templates about browser issues all over Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first point at which Microsoft will automatically enable complex text support is in Vista - so you're looking at at least six years before we see the trickle down effect. Indeed, in some of the pages that the template is listed, it not only ruins the flow of the page, but is obtrusive (this can be fixed on a page-by-page basis by repositioning it and other boxes). Indeed, I hope to prevent the proliferation of lots of different script boxes that will become harder to maintain and will have no advantage over the current template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where exactly is the problem. I have WinXP with service Pack 1 and 2. My IE shows the indic scripts properly!!! My problem is with the Firefox browser. --Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well for starters, Malayalam was only added on SP2. The reason IE works and Firefox doesn't is because IE calls the international text API (Uniscribe) directly whereas Firefox doesn't. You need to physically enable complex text support on your computer for it to work. See the link on the IndicText template for full instructions for ALL Indian scripts: Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, a suggestion: two syllables are featured on the "Indic" template; need they both be Gurmukhi? Perhaps if one were Malayalam, it would serve to mollify all concerned. The choice of these two scripts as representative would also be "nice" in the sense that both of them are, to coin a word, "non-rampant" in India and do not elicit strong emotions (script-evolution theories, 'aryanocentrism', all find mention in the day-long discussion above). ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two pictures indicate what complex rendering does. In that example, it's repositioning vowel sign i. So it shows a 'before complex text rendering' and an 'after complex text rendering' image. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security Risk

edit

This template reads "this article poses a risk to international security and should be edited." If one of our articles actually poses a risk to international security it needs far more than a template, and any such issues should be brought directly to the board. However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern. - SimonP 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See British Embassy in Washington, D.C. and its talk page for an example of this template in action. - SimonP 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is akin to those who publish other peoples' personal information on Wikipedia and is just as bad. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, a person's information is private and even if it weren't it would be hard for it to be verifiable, an information on an embassy or other government building on the other hand is verifiable and publicly available and therefore eligible for inclusion. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per my argument above and the fact that these so called claims to national security are just straw man arguments. Information about embassies and other governmenmt agencies is publicly available and verifiable so it's eligible for inclusion and therefore having an article to tell people to remove it is flawed. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since terrorists would much rather attack world leaders, can I trust that the addresses for the residences of the leaders of the US and UK will be purged from Wikipedia? --Golbez 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAgain: Wikipedia IS NOT an addressbook and has no mechanism to trace those individuals looking for the address information of diplomatic missions. Other websites have this ability. Since the only medium we can compare this issue is to the Internet, it is important that we remain vigilant in the war on terrorism and the ability to track those that would cause harm to others. The strong will and desire of others to continue to delete these security templates is itself a matter of concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZed (talk • contribs) 19:55, December 28, 2005
Bullshit, A) it's impossible for us to know who's viewing this information and it's not our job to police information, we are a free encyclopedia that consists of verifiable and factual information, what you want is censorship due to a percieved threat which is baseless. WP:NOT should be expanded to state that Wikipedia is not censored at the behest of people who have irrational national security fears. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Hopefully, the debacle that has unfolded here demonstrates to Wikipedia editors, adminstrators and arbitrators the need to KEEP important templates such as these. Rather than deal with the case in a fair and polite manner, this IP was banned from WIKI to prevent further comment. Irregardless of the fact that the 3 Revert Rule was not adequately and fairly re-inforced when it came to the original vandalizer User:SimonP, and irregardless of the fact that two seperate admins banned my IP twice within a minute for the same infraction (how is that even possible?) When real security matters arise here on WP, what are the mechanisms Jimbo Wales et al have implemented to ensure that there is a secure method to report users to police/security/proper authorities when material of a sensitive nature continues to be posted? I hope none of the long-time admins here who have ignored this issue would suggest that this template does not have a place here on Wikipedia. PeterZed 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors, administrators and arbitrators are all watching you make a fool out of yourself. The addresses and locations of foreign embassies are as sensitive and vital to national security as my shoe size. FCYTravis 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Let's see... Editors of the Animal Liberation Front use the term target to describe current operations here on Wikipedia. How is this not a candidate to be tagged as an international security risk when they are possibly identifying post-secondary institutions as potential locations for terrorist activity? yet Wikipedians suggest that there is noneed for a security template? PeterZed 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that Peter Zed has been a little too zealous and failed to actually read the article. It lists universities that have been attacked in the past by groups claiming to be the Animal Liberation Front. By the same logic, you may as well add that template to the Al Qaeda article if it mentions the US embassy in Nigeria or the Twin Towers.--BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- **I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he is, politely, saying that the template is bound for the bit bucket, whatever tortured reading you give to that post. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lolling pin! - FrancisTyers 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see this has been deleted already, but wouldn't having a convient tag marking all of the good stuff have made it easier on the bad guys? I mean, why go searching for stuff when you can just go straight to everything marked Security Risk.
  • COMMENT

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

  • Is that a legal threat I smell? We have nothing more to clarify to you, you are the one who is being deliberately vague and mysterious. --Golbez 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT There is nothing vague and mysterious about the clear security risk that posting photographs and addresses of diplomatic missions on this website poses. Supporters of known terrorist groups are permitted to freely edit, distribute and create materials here. The template itself was deleted before due process granted. I am suggesting that traffic emanating from and directed to this website be blocked from the servers of certain legal jurisdictions in order to prevent the further spread of misinformation as well as tools that may allow terrorists to create havoc.PeterZed 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You have yet to explain why it's a security risk to have the British Embassy's address on Wikipedia, when it's plainly visible on their webpage. Since you have not even bothered to answer this, which has been asked multiple times, I am forced to disregard you as a minor, but persistent, troll, someone who has absolutely no desire to assist international security and is just poking and prodding us for what I must assume to be your own amusement. --Golbez 23:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only think that letting this TFD finish would do is lower the percentage of votes in favor of it. Unless you got some of your "security proffesional" colleagues to come and vote. --Chris 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlanta conventions

edit

Unused nav template. All links in the template are red. - TexasAndroid 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

edit
edit

A template dependent upon Freenet/Ways to view a freesite (AFD discussion). Doesn't seem at all useful without it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a large number of pages (like more than ten) use this template then obviously there is a need for it and it shouldn't be deleted. If there is enough need to warrant keeping it, then I think the original article should be moved to a more appropriate space, as the AfD debate can be summed up as "I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something?"
I forget how to check template usage, but obviously if this template is deleted we lose some external links which will need to be removed or otherwise fixed. --TexasDex 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRL Grounds

edit

Template:NRL Grounds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, only a couple of categories no other content. MeltBanana 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIP

edit

Template:WIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template poorly duplicates a couple we already have, as well as utomatically feeding any article its marked with into the general stubs category (to give an example of why this is a bad thing, it's currently in use on only one article, and that is clearly not a stub). Unnecessary. 210.54.198.105 01:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (um, that's Grutness...wha?. Damn computer logged me out).[reply]

Template:User ai kago-5

edit

Template:User ai kago-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Master race? Hello? A userbox announcing to the world one's intention to create a master race? Is this Wikipedia or Fuehrerpedia? We don't need this crap here. Contributes nothing to Wikipedia, and it offends people. Like me. On second thought, maybe delete everything in the series except one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality law

edit

Template:Nationality law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Redundant with Wikipedia:legal disclaimer. It is established community policy not to use additional disclaimers in articles. Jiang 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Delete per nom DaGizza Chat 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuberculosis

edit

Not really a candidate for an article series, given that the top two in this list will be merged. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete license

edit

Redundant with Template:No license. --Puzzlet Chung 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Infobox University5

edit

Template:Infobox University5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used. In fact all of Infobox University4-6 are used very sparingly and could probably be fixed not to be used at all. --platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 4

edit

Was an unused redirect to Template:Web reference 2 which I intend to nominate later too (needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 2

edit

Not used. Replacement: template:web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: It's really not used. At the present situation the compatible template:web reference can be used without breaking articles if somebody finds a leftover call of web reference 2 (I think I got them all converted to web reference). To Neto: you can act on template:web reference then at one strike. Or do you want to convert an old fork of web reference, too? Adrian Buehlmann 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ROT13

edit

Template:ROT13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

December 30

edit

PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

edit

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete — Template creates a false assertion of copyright status, the Biographical Directory of the United States copyright details clearly state that not all images on the site are in the public domain, template needs to be explicitly rewritten or deleted and images taken from the site tagged within the existing tagging structure --nixie 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite. - 99% of Biographical Directory of Congress images are PD. "copyright information is provided whenever possible". This states all US Federal Government sites such as Library of Congress or NARA. So, if you want to delete it, nominate also other US-Gov templates. - Darwinek 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rewrite. as Darwinek above - we seem to be delete crazy all of a sudden - this is a prefectly good template. The direct objection should be addressed which is the wording of the template - not the template itself. Kevinalewis 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/December_2005&oldid=1110843904"