Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:30, 26 July 2005 editArcadian (talk | contribs)163,050 edits →[]: delete← Previous edit Revision as of 16:52, 26 July 2005 edit undoFrazzydee (talk | contribs)Administrators8,294 edits -Template:AubreyMaturinSeries, -Template:Privileged access, -Template:Dangerous, -Template:Policysuspended, -Template:TPOVNext edit →
Line 540: Line 540:


=== July 16 === === July 16 ===
==== ] ====
The pages that this navigated among have now all been merged, so this tempalte is no longer needed. ] 21:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*Well done! '''Delete''' then. ]]] 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

==== ] ====
We have a general disclaimer. Usage not worthy of a template. -- ] ] 21:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': there's a general disclaimer as ] says, and ] a FAQ, either, which this has overtones of. Also, WP shouldn't make 'recommendations' in the way this tl does. -] 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', pointless. People who can't handle BOFH status in Linux generally aren't given it anyway. ]]] 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
**You forget that linux impementations are not infrequently installed on single-user computers as replacements for/alternatives to Windoes. In such cases the user generally has full rights, but may not know as much as s/he ought to about the dangers of some commands. ] 17:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' this is important info about such commnds, but might be better ingtegrated into the article directly. ] 17:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Agree to some extent about WP not making recommendations (but weakly, because I think there can be ]). More to the point, this template will not make this warning appear where it is most needed. It is currently just linked from ], because it ''requires'' root access. But many commands which don't necessarily ''require'' root access are much more dangerous if invoked as root, for example ]. I think the general comment on ] is enough. ] 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', agree with Splash, Netoholic. ] ] 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. This kind of thing would be suitable for a programming manual, but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and only describes operating system commands for encyclopedic purposes. Someone who has superuser access to a computer system knows or should know what he's doing. --]|] 16:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

==== ] ====
We have a general disclaimer. Maybe a joke creation? -- ] ] 20:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', per Netoholic. -] 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*Not a bad idea per se but I can't really think of a place to put it, and from its talk page neither can the creator, so '''delete'''. ]]] 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. We're describing stuff, not advocating it. --]|] 16:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Thats sorta funny but delete its useless. ] 05:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

==== ] ====
I'd say redirect to ], but that one was deleted too. -- ] ] 20:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' — there's no page this could apply to. Either it ''is'' policy or it is ''not''. I suppose this is intended for a hypothetical current policy which is being repolled with a view to removal. Even then, it would presumably remain policy until consensus decided against it - it wouldn't be 'suspended'. -] 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', ]. We don't suspend policy (''"hey, I don't like the NPOV policy, how about we suspend it for today?"''). We do have disputed guidelines but that's entirely different. ]]] 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', as per ] above. -- ] 04:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- If a policy is suspended, then remove the <nowiki>{{policy}}</nowiki> tag from it to indicate that fact. --] 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

==== ] ====
Since when do we have a problem with POV ''templates''? Redundant with {{tl|tfd}} and the Edit button. :) -- ] ] 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Hmmm'''. Nothing links here. But POV is not a case for {{tl|tfd}}, it just needs reworking and the tag indicates that (on a talk page, I presume). The nomination argument applies equally well to articles, so we could do away with all the POV templates on that basis, which we clearly can't. I'm inclined to suggest a weak delete, but I'd be interested in other arguments too. -] 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', fork. Wow, is it general cleanup day in template land? Not that I mind :) ]]] 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
*I created this because I thought a certain template was non-neutral and I thought a POV notice would be of use. It was a little ad-hoc but I used it at least once. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 08:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. --] 09:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- or at least it should not be in a box and look more like ], so it is clear that it is a dispute about the template and not the article that uses it.. I cannot think of a likely situation where this applies.. the meaning of having many of the templates on an article is inherently POV at a meta level.. take <nowiki>{{cleanup}}</nowiki> it represents the opinion of a few editors who think an article needs to be cleaned up, a '''vfd''' tag on an article represents a point of view by as few as 1 persons that an article merits listing for deletion, a '''POV''' tag in and of itself is POV. There is the issue of '''uses of a template''' and what is expressed by its appearance in a specific spot versus its contents in general. So templates are allowed to be POV, and if someone makes a <nowiki>{{sucks}}</nowiki> template with text "This subject really sucks" or "This is a sucky stub", then the right tag to add to it is <nowiki>{{tfd}}</nowiki> not <nowiki>{{tpov}}</nowiki>, or EDIT and fix the text, since templates are short enough to do this easily -- with long articles, it may be rather difficult to edit them into NPOV. --] 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 16:52, 26 July 2005

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages, as per the TFD Instructions.

July 26

Template:Db:a1

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

Template:QOTD

Apparently a template for an abortive Quote of the day project. If this was being organized by the folks at Wikiquote as a daily feature, I'd love to see it. As is, it should be deleted. I'll let someone else have the fun of taking Misplaced Pages:Quote of the day to WP:VFD. BlankVerse ∅ 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Moved to Wiktionary

Delete as redundant to {{VFD}} and unused. --Dmcdevit·t 09:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Bordered

As meta templates go, this one is pretty egregious - it forces everything to be class="notice metadata" id="cleanup" in addition to the stylistic formatting, which really should be handled in css instead of a template. I've reverted it out of Template:spoiler and Template:endspoiler and pre-emptively substed it in Template:stub, Template:dynamic list, and Template:OntarioSH. Leaving it in the latter three at all was against my better judgement. —Cryptic (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - as said, CSS should handle this and not meta-templates. violet/riga (t) 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stub-base

Redundant to Template:Metastub. —Cryptic (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Redirectbug

And associated category Category:Redirectbug.

I can't figure out why this exists. It is only used on one page, and so I think subst'ing it in should be sufficient. There's no point to a template and creating a category for this. --Dmcdevit·t 00:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mathematics

This template not linked from any article. The templates {quantity}, {change}, {space} and {structure} mentioned in this template are themselves up for deletion below, it it seems they are going to be deleted. In addition, this template joins topics not having anything in common besides the fact that they are math. As such,

July 25

Template:Gay

Strange anon creation. Kill it. Dragons flight 08:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AcademicBoosterism

Created as a joke, being used in lieu of discussion. - Nunh-huh 23:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hopeless. Also send the image to IFD after deletion of the template please. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Created as a joke? It's a real problem. The picture may be bland, but that should be an incentive to improve the article so the template goes away. (That was a joke.) Anville 00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This might be a problem, but I think it is merely a special case of non-NPOV issues (a strain of POV Disease, if you will). Courtland 01:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Anville. The template raises a good point. 69.17.20.106 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Points are to be raised on talk pages, not templates. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Courtland. Just another synonym for NPOV, and this template is more likely to discourage productive discussion than encourage it. Having a somewhat inflammatory name for a template that is intended to help resolve NPOV disputes is just silly. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
We have a science-fiction stub which is more specific than the general stub, and we have a Star Trek stub which is more specific still. What's wrong with a slightly more specific version of the NPOV banner? Anville 13:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Please read my comment again. I think I was fairly clear about my concern. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it does not relate to any part of Misplaced Pages policy that is not already covered by the various NPOV templates, and it has a design that is pretty unpleasant. -Splash 17:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If the article is not NPOV, tag it as such. This just lends itself to edit wars around the Harvard-Yale football game, for example.--SarekOfVulcan 19:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit, Keep, Make More. I agree with Courtland and others that this is a strain of POV disease, but I disagree that this is a reason for killing the template. {{NPOV}} and similar templates are warnings to the reader that something may be wrong with the article, however most of these templates do little to explain what the problem is. If we assume that many people read encyclopedia articles about subjects with which they are unfamiliar, then a naive reader may have no way of recognizing what the problem actually is. Because of this I would advocate the creation of either a number of general classes of NPOV templates to identify specific types of problems (of which this could be one), and/or the creation of a template {{POV-because}}, which could take a parameter for giving an explanation of what the POV problem is. I do think however, that all of the NPOV type templates need to conform to a similar style, and as such this would need to be redesigned without the ugly graphic and with a link to NPOV. Dragons flight 20:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I guess I don't have any specific problem with expanding the selection of POV indicators, as long as it is done in such a way that they are visually consistent, non-invasive, and non-inflammatory. This particular one fails each of those criteria but could certainly be cleaned up to conform. —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nature of how an article has strayed into non-NPOV should be described in gory detail (complete with blood stains from the debates) in the talk-space. True, the underlying reasons for putting the general non-NPOV template on are not obvious to the casual reader, but they should be clear to the reader who reads the article deeply and who takes the talk-space as part of the clarification of the article's treatment of the topic. Regards, Courtland 23:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Improve and keep. Changed vote, see below Yes, it's too big, it's too intrusive. Nunh-huh's comment that it's been used in lieu of discussion is fair. Academic boosterism is, however, a real problem, because it spreads from article to article and keeps reinfecting articles. Every few months I'll see a fresh crop of six paragraphs about "prestige" or U. S. News rankings sprouting up somewhere, and the justification given is always that some other school has done it, and theirs is much worse. The reason why I think it might be appropriate to use this in place of a standard NPOV is that I believe the warning should be weaker than the NPOV warning. Academic boosterism usually does not mean that the article is factually inaccurate. It's more a question of vanity, not bias. Taste, not accuracy. I, for one, want to be able to read about my alma mater without having a bunch of cardinal and gray butt feathers waved in my face, and I believe most other readers feel the same way. Other encyclopedias can talk about colleges without sounding like the admissions department, why can't we? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And this template will assist in producing such an article how? It was used to label about ten successive college articles - none of them with any particular issues regarding boosterism-- in a flurry of vandalism, and none of them with any notation on the accompanying talk page. Why should we make that easy? - Nunh-huh 22:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. First off, :) the way you (User:Dpbsmith) put things made me laugh. Thanks. I hadn't thought on the notion of a weaker version of non-NPOV warnings, but I can see your point. There was a discussion of "community pride" in some deletion-related debate a while ago and this relates to it in an indirect way; there is no reason for the pride of an author with regard to a topic to compromise the tone or factual accuracy of the treatment in the case of social organizations and institutions .. it is that pride among members that keeps such things in existence and leads them to grow, and to talk about them. I'll have to think some more on that and consider my vote in the context of your comments ... Courtland 23:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • As I've said elsewhere, this is a matter for a style guide, for reasoned discussion, or for collaborative editing. Applying a disparaging label to someone's enthusiasm for their school, and smashing that label in their face by plastering a template on the article they've contributed to does not seem like a step toward a solution to me. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nunh-huh has convinced me. (I hate it when that happens.) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete!. Redundant with {{NPOV}}. Unnecesary, unneeded. BlankVerse ∅ 13:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

July 24

Template:Song dynasty emperors

This template, and also Template:Song dynasty emperors1, have been superceded by the generic Template:Succession box template group. I've moved all articles that used them over to the succession box format. Bryan 19:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Song infobox

There's another one called Template:Single infobox already used on quite a few articles. So delete. -- pmam21articles 02:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, until migration is complete, no? It seems to be on quite a few articles. -Splash 17:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No offense, but it's only used in 4 articles (3 Beatles songs, 1 Rolling Stones). Migration will be really quick. If you're confused, Template:Single infobox is the on used alot, not the Song infobox.
  • Keep until either one template is used or a third is created from a merger. Infoboxes are complicated and useful beasts in general because they encourage the organization of (in many cases) mundane information, allowing the article text to tell a unique story about the topic. The deletion of one just because there is a competing one with overlapping scope isn't in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Courtland 00:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Similar comment to as above. Of course, templates are good. Anyway, the one up for deletion (Song infobox) is only in 4 articles. It will be quick. -- pmam21articles 11:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. These looks like an issue that should be handled by the participants at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Songs, instead of here at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 14:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm the original author of the template, and I see here that Template:Single infobox is pretty much the same and it was created earlier, so it should be the one that stays. If I had known that other one existed, I wouldn't have created Template:Song infobox. --Arcadian 16:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

July 22

Template:Quentin Tarantino films

Another directors template, incomplete at that, that should be categorified and deleted. ∞Who?¿? 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Asiamiles

This seems very similar to the WorldPerks template, which reached a consensus of categorize and delete. The same should be done with this. Dbinder 16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rikondakizoc

Looks like a nonsense template created by an anon IP with a minor history of creating nonsense articles. --Icelight 15:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:WP:RM

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

July 21

Template:Charleston County School of the Arts infobox

Template for a single school article, should be substed, there is no reason for this code to be in a template rather than the article. Joe D (t) 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. A single use template can be acceptable as a seperate entity if including it into the text of the page directly would interfere with editting the main page because of the size or complexity of the template's content. For example: {{Timeline Geological Timescale}}, {{Planet Infobox/Earth}}. This is fairly marginal on those grounds. No vote yet. Dragons flight 20:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The size and complexity of this particular template are only a concern because the template is needlessly large and complex. It was originally written in HTML; just by running it through this converter, I trimmed about 200 bytes off, and made it noticably more editable. Why a single school needs its own huge, fancy infobox is beyond me. Subst and Delete. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Subst and Delete seems a reasonable suggestion. Vegaswikian 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikt

A keystroke-saving template that doesn't. "{{subst:wikt|whatever}}" is five more characters than "]", and this template shouldn't ever be used unsubsted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The redirect to {{wiktionary}} (which superceded this) seems to be have been removed. May as well delete, as unused. Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately confuses the issue of links into Wiktionary by addition of a cryptically titled template. Further, it is my understanding that even {{wiktionary}} is now considered to be obsolete owing to the switching off of the article-title capitalisation rule in the software implementation for the project; {{wiktionarypar}} is the favored template for use now. On a side note, I would be suprised if the original template does not undergo some change to accomodate this software environment change. Courtland 02:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-school

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

Template:AD, Template:CE, Template:BCE and Template:BC

Redirect to the below - thus they have all the problems of ADCE and BCEBC, PLUS the fact that they're metatemplates. Strong delete. Radiant_>|< 12:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Point of information: These "metatemplates" cause no more or less problems than the "regular" templates they direct to. It is the number of pages on which a template (perhaps indirectly) appears that is the issue in terms of load. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. A template that includes another template (such as these four) causes twice the load of a template that does not. Radiant_>|< 12:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See below. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:ADCE and Template:BCEBC

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

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

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


  • Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless IMO, when you could type it yourself, AND with a wikilink which this does not (in this revision) allow. And if at some point in time we grow so litigious that some users want to see BC/AD and others BCE/CE, we'll make it a preferences option like the date/time rewriting. Garrett 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Weak Keep, now the mechanics are explained it seems quite sensible, although the complexity of adding and using it can hopefully be ironed out.
    • It is unreasonable for editors to be expected to remember and use CSS class names themselves, remembering a template is much easier. Sounds a bit like you also don't understand the purpose (admittedly if you are not using monobook this is understandable). See User:Pcb21/ADCE_testing_page for a little more detail. Pcb21| Pete 16:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. I only looked at the template code so didn't realise it actually did anything, it just looked like shorthand for "BCE/BC", much as someone once made a template to insert a standard bullet. Still I think there could be an easier way to do it. The dates convert without interference (merely ] around them), so there would ideally be a way to do this as well, maybe by putting YEAR beside it and it recognising and converting like with ISBN 0091801788 or whatnot. Garrett 08:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cleverly implements the preference option Garrett mentions. —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wi

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

  1. Since Misplaced Pages articles start with a capital and Wiktionary articles do not, the link will generally not work
  2. If we were to add a parameter to this to prevent problem 1, it would be redundant with Template:Wikt.
  3. Any article that consists of only a link to Wiktionary should instead be 1) expanded, or 2) redirected to a similar article that explains it (e.g. redirect a verb to a noun).
  • Radiant_>|< 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with the above reasons. — Ram-Man 13:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Re 1) and 2) Wiktionary redirects from caps to non-caps as a matter of course. Re 3). These aren't articles. These are Misplaced Pages:Soft redirects. The acceptability of these has been widely discussed and accepted in the past. There are many cases where they are the most natual thing to do. Pcb21| Pete 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • On top of that, I've just changed the implementation that helps when redirects are not in place. Pcb21| Pete 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary does not redirect from either capitalization to the other as a matter of course. Whilst redirects exist for many existing articles, that is merely a side-effect of a conversion script that was run once, just after the switch-over, to move the existing articles at the time to lowercase. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Point 1 is simply wrong since Wiktionary uses bots to make redirects from a capitalized to a lowercase form, unless a seperate entry exists at the capitalized form. (see below) So in nearly all cases the link should work. For Point 2, {{wi}} is much prettier than {{wikt}} as it should be since it is intended for otherwise blank pages. For point 3, one intended usage is to leave {{wi}} on pages that have been VFDed with the consensus of "move to wiktionary". This allows a useful link to exist at pages that have never been more than a dictdef. I know I have seen this used on a number of pages beyond what appears on "what links here", so I can only assume that it has been being used with subst:, or that many of those pages subsequently grew up into full wikipedia articles. Regardless, this should not be deleted. Dragons flight 15:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no 'bots performing such redirects at Wiktionary, and there never have been any. The redirects that now exist were created by a one-time process that didn't involve a 'bot. To my knowledge, there is only one 'bot running on Wiktionary at the moment, and it is performing interwiki links. (The few other 'bots that used to run were broken by the MediaWiki upgrade.) Also note that there is at least one user who systematically removes this template. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Who is systematically removing this template? Pcb21| Pete 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying that Uncle G, though I dare say I would wonder why they aren't redirecting uppercase to lowercase, and getting a bot to run on 1.5 is not that hard. Regardless, Pcb's change to directing at the search page would still work consistently, yes? Dragons flight 20:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have long disliked this template as it is so often applied to titles that actually deserve articles or disambig pages. - SimonP 17:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The template is already worded to encourage users to replace it if a internal-to-Misplaced Pages solution is better. Educating users about the intended use is much more useful than deleting the genuine uses. Pcb21| Pete 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but maybe reword a bit, I think this is the best solution for pages that people keep creating but will never be more than dicdefs. JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it cuts down on VFDs for dicdefs. Maybe a future version of mediawiki will have a better soft-redirect solution. Eliot 20:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. If it does cut down on vfd listings, it's because instead of actually deleting a bad, potential-free dicdef, this is just slapped on instead. This was originally meant to prevent recreations of common words, like under and carry. In that regard, I think {{deletedpage}} does the same making this redundant. It has also been misused and abused on pages that should be just delete outright, and aren't common enough to warrant any danger of recreation. I find it very unlikely that Jerrybuild needs this at all. Lastly, since its entire purpose is to be an interwiki link, or redirect, it is effectively no content. This does not make a valid encyclopedia article, in fact, it discourages one if its possible. It's interesting to note that the result of this template is to create an article that perfectly fits the CSD: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title." --Dmcdevit·t 21:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Religious persecution

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

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

Template:Harry Potter spoiler

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

  • maybe leave it for a couple of weeks, then delete it and revert to {{Spoiler}}. I think there are many people who will be very annoyed if they find out and the {{Spoiler}} warning may be not noticible enough for newbies. As for Episode III, I think everyone knew what was gonna happen in that. Supersaiyanplough| 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love the Harry Potter series, but the attitude of the people who write about it here is beginning to annoy. The template is needlessly specific. Superm401 | Talk 03:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and subst. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • delete a tad too specific. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for at least another week or so. This formatting popped up independently on multiple pages, and was reverted after being converted to the normal spoiler template. I created it to ease transition to {{spoiler}} once things slow down on these articles, as clearly explained on its talk page. Yes, it's overspecific, and large, and annoying, and redundant, but it's a much better solution than having this code on those pages instead of a template. Absolutely should not be substed in its current form, as TBSDY suggests - when deleted, it should be replaced with {{spoiler}}. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant. --] 05:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. Radiant_>|< 08:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ram-Man 13:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until 1 August, per Cryptic. Then Delete. If we create a Template: New publication spoiler, less visible than this one, but more visible than Template:spoiler, we can avoid this discussion next year. Septentrionalis 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I guess it could be made a bit smaller, but it is very helpful. I had just finished HBP and was looking at the Wizarding World page. It spoils who dies right there! I thought that the regular spoiler template meant it only had spoilers for the first five books.Keep for at least three more weeks. It takes some people a long time to read the books. It can get smaller over that time.Phoenix Song 16:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace all instances of this template with {{spoiler}}. I don't think HBP-specific spoilers require their own templates. --Deathphoenix 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have our lovely Template:Spoiler! --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and use {{spoiler-about}} to make it clar that the spoilers are for the new work, where this might not be obvious. DES 18:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Book 6 was spoiled for me when carlessly reading an article that just had a regular spoiler warning. I was not expecting, that the information was updated so soon and that such spoilers would be at places where I did not expect them (of course I would not have read sections that were specific to book 6). Leave it for one or two weeks, that should be enough to warn other careless readers like me. -- 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - waaaay too specific. We do not need a template just for spoilers in one book series. Find a better way of doing it. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The regular spoiler warning is sufficient. Anyone that claims otherwise is, in my opinion, such a careless reader then they would probably have missed half the plot reading the book anyway. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - regular spoiler warning sufficient. Ingoolemo  02:18, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. The generic spoiler warning is actually insufficient in my interpretation. zen master T 07:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mind either way, as long as you remove all the old spoiler warnings for the previous books. 14:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Do we really want or need 5,000 different spoiler templates? If we keep this one, why not create a new one for every article? Makes no sense and defeats the entire purpose of a template. Gblaz 15:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't exactly understand the point in deleting a template just because it's narrow. We may be only able to use it for an article or two, but is it really taking up space on the site or something? --SeizureDog 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least use the {{Spoiler}} format. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. {{spoiler}} works fine. -Hmib 17:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete / replace with {{spoiler-about}}. Agreed that this is too specific; apologies to the Harry Potter fans but if this template survives then that would be considered tacit support for dozens, neh hundreds of topic-specific spoilers, which I doubt many people would find beneficial. Courtland 01:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comments: Regarding the concern that this template should be retained until a specified time ... it might be appropriate to use {{Current}} or create a template that deals specifically with time-sensitive spoiler information. With regard to immediate obsolescence, information on the content of works that have not yet been published isn't really something we should encourage for inclusion in an encyclopedia, in my opinion, as it is not descriptive but (in many cases) speculative or (in some cases) ill-gotten (i.e. from a stolen copy of a screenplay published on the internet, for instance .. talking in general terms here and not specifically on the Harry Potter matter). Courtland 02:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

July 20

Template:ImportantLabeledEquation

A dotted box style for displaying equations. The mathematicians over here seem to think that an equation is better off without any box around it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Dotted_framebox_around_formulas (that was discussed in other places too). Oleg Alexandrov 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

July 19

Template:Sopranos

A very long list of Sopranos character articles, redundant with Category:The Sopranos characters. This template is rather large, obtrusive, and unnecessary. Postdlf 19:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Europe

12 keep/5 delete/1 replace

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

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

  • Keep Alinor 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) correction of the introduction - the Turkey question is closed since a long time ago. 10 other states/issues are also closed - conclusion reached. There remain only 3 to close. Pools may be unwiki, but the template is usefull on its own and it should not be deleted becouse of a minor issue with 2 remaining unsettled states (and the Flag). The place for the pool/discussion is also not on the template-page (preferable places: pages for each disputable country, and also here), but is already there for a long time. A category or a list (as in the main Europe article) is not the same as a template - the template is visualizing in a much more compact way the whole information and it has other advantages. To summurize: 'keep' the template; eventualy 'move' the discussion and/or the pool; eventualy 'cancel' the pool.
  • Keep Perfectly OK template needed in some places. FearÉIREANN\ 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because concept is reasonable whether it lists all members or only identifies membership. Whether implemented as a template or category, membership indicator is OK. And I won't vote to delete as a "test" of some sort when that should be resolved through other process than deletion through a backwater vote. (SEWilco 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep, type-boxes are useful. James F. (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Useful. Nightstallion 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is useful --*drew 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Templates and categories are not at war. "There can be only one!" is not a truism. Unfocused 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is relevant and useful. --Valentinian 22:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Are we going to delete all similar boxes now? —Cantus…☎ 11:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Septentrionalis 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is exactly what categories and lists are for. Note that the debate over which countries are part of eutope could just as well take place over a category or a list -- this template would be a bad idea if there were no debate at all -- a similer template for States of the US should likewise be deleted. DES 18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete iff other contintent-templates are also deleted. If this nomination has been motivated by the poll precedings, then I might like to point out that the very same problems may be encountered by a category - which to include and exclude. -- Joolz 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, one template for this purpose is useful but two is not. No forks please. Radiant_>|< 09:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because the countries of Europe are easily found elsewhere and because it clogs up some pages, Sweden has two templates at the bottom besides this. --Fred-Chess 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see what's wrong with a visualization of European countries. Yes, it might be open to reinterpretation and revision, but so is every other encyclopedia article. That's no reason for deletion. Aecis 12:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Important overview template.--ThomasK 14:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This and similar templates are very useful. Going via a Category is a loss of time. A template is much quicker when you want to quickly compare several countries from the same continent/group. Luis rib 19:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Calculus2

Old version of Template:Calculus. I doubt it is worth keeping it. If somebody would really like to see how the calculus template looks like, one could see the page history. Oleg Alexandrov 13:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Atten and Template:Atten lite

Delete created by an anon, and unused; also broken. Look like a suggestion for something to be used over at Misplaced Pages:Pages needing attention, but none of those pages have a table that needs this. I left a message on the anon's talk page just in case.-Splash 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: there are some uses of {{arttalk}} which give a visually similar effect, and so the nominees are also redundant with this. -Splash 01:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:UNmembers

Delete: Something that is much better served as a category. Only used on two articles. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

July 18

Template:USNavyAwards

Previously only linked to one article. Really no point to keeping it. Actual table has been copied to that article. K1Bond007 22:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:MathematicsCOTW

This template is obsolete. It is replaced by Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. --R.Koot 18:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Simple housekeeping rather than a decision on content or display. Pcb21| Pete 21:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obsolete. -- Titoxd 05:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. BTW, this template is really ugly, I suggest something like Template:GCOTW. See below: -Hyad 08:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Gaming collaboration of the week This article is a candidate for Gaming Collaboration of the week. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.
Have you looked at the new template? It is already merged :). And it's meant to be put on the WikiPortal, there's a different template for articles (which looks like the one above). --R.Koot 11:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
This is the current mathematics collaboration of the week! You are encouraged to edit this article, so that it may meet a higher standard of quality.

Oleg Alexandrov 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Israel and Template:Israel infobox

Template:Infobox Country is used in the Israel article instead. 500LL 15:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Listdev (and Category:Incomplete lists)

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

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

  • Keep Useful note to readers. In addition, as Courtland suggested, a Comprehensive List template and category should be added.
  • Mild Keep There are lists of clearly enumerable items which ought to be complete. A hypothetical "List of all US Presidents" for example, should be complete, and if it isn't, a tag like this should warn the reader not to rely on it and encourage any editor to complete it. On the other hand List of legal terms or a hypothetical "List of Historical Novels" by their nature can't be expected to be complete, and certianly can't be proved compelete at any specific point. This tag should be reserved for soerts of list that a reader would naturally expect to be complete an even definitave, and warn when they fail of this standard. It should not be used on open-ended lists. With this limitation (which should be documeted on a proper talk page) I think the tempalte is of value I assume the category is simply of pages that havbe been tagged with the template. If so, the same remarks would apply. DES 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as above. While it shouldn't be used for open-ended lists, it's a useful tool to let people know that a (generally) static list is not complete, such as the list of SkyTeam Destinations. Dbinder 14:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Many lists on Misplaced Pages are enumerable, but incomplete. Kaldari 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep--Striver 03:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note I have added a usage note to the template's talk page, and i hav started to remove it from open-ended lists, which seem to be the majority of the places it has been used, of which there are over 2200. DES 18:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An "incomplete list" should be regarded as a list equivalent of a stub. – Kpalion (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I remember seeing another similar template up for deleteion vote about a month or two ago and the result was to use this one and delete the other. slambo 18:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC) -- I just remembered, the previous vote was over Template:Expand list which is now a redirect to this template. slambo 18:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very useful template. --] 19:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is useful when the reader might otherwise be justified in assuming that the list is complete when in reality it is not. Lists which are only of "notable" entries would not necessarily need the template, but it really comes in handy otherwise. --BaronLarf 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Currently written as if it should be used on article pages. But this sort of "please expand" information is clearly for editors, so should go on talk page. Second choice: Reword and limit to talk pages only. Pcb21| Pete 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. By the way, there is the Dynamic list template (see Category:Dynamic lists) for the "incomplete and will never be complete lists". — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regardless of whether a list will ever be complete, users can still be informed that the list is incomplete and that they can help expand it.  BRIAN0918  23:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.Useful for works in progress. Walkerma 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful template. Guettarda 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.The lack of completeness in a list is an important piece of information with respect to interpretation of the context and validity of the list. However, considering the comments about most lists being incomplete (those which are not in the dynamic-class, that is), maybe we should consider making a replacement template ... {{completelist}} => "to the best of our knowledge, this list is exhaustive and complete" ... which would be used on far fewer lists and would have a higher semantic value. Just a thought. Until such a debate has been raised and born fruit, let's keep this template or one of its cousins ({{expand list}}, for instance). Also, I think this template should appear in the article space and not in the discussion space (referring to some comments in an earlier delete vote above). Courtland 23:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This template is in use by many thousands of articles, justifying it's usefulness. It also welcomes new visitors to add new information to the article. --Alterego 01:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very useful for many articles. --Arbiteroftruth 03:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful for pointing out lists that are woefully incomplete and encouraging edits. --Kzollman 04:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I do admit though that almost every list of whatever has the potential for needing further edits.
  • Keep. extremely useful. Not sure who made the last edit, but it's not strictly true - many lists have a finite number of possible members. A list of 20th century heads of state may be incomplete on Misplaced Pages (if such a list exists), but it is a finite list. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No need to even justify. (rolling eyes). Nelson Ricardo 08:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful. jni 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly. Dmn / Դմն 10:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Brian0918 mentioned, while some lists may never be truly completed, there is a difference between "almost complete" and "woefully incomplete"; despite the wording, I think the template serves to stave off the latter pretty well.--Mitsukai 13:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is useful for lists whose members can be determined with a reasonable amount of effort. Obviously it doesn't apply for open-ended lists. Superm401 | Talk 19:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful. Some lists can be completed. --Locarno 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful for lists that have a finite member count, but where the original author e.g. did not have the knowledge to supply all members. Both useful for readers (as a warning) and editors (as an encouragement). Perhaps even useful for some not-so finite lists. For instance a hypothetical list Norse mythical beings featuring only "Verðandi" could perhaps use this template. Shinobu 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sarge Baldy 23:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Kee
  • Keep - I think it does serve a useful purpose. --Shawn K. Quinn 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Useful. For example, see its use at the article on My System, where it is used to mark a list of book editions. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Useful for many of the above reasons. ~ Dpr 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all newbies realize they can edit wikipedia, and many lists are incomplete, thus this list is useful for at least two reasons. -JCarriker 12:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. While it is certainly true that almost any article can be updated there are specific lists which are in obvious need of expansion. MadMax 23:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is such a thing as a complete list (czars of Russia), ergo, there is such a thing as an incomplete list. Just because incomplete is in the majority doesn't mean it should be taken for granted that all lists are complete. jengod 18:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many people might not know all of something, but would at least like to start the list. First, the template alerts other people who visit the article that the list is incomplete; second, the category alerts other people browsing for work that that list is incomplete. For example, if a person knew most of the enemy names from Super Mario RPG, but not all, yet wanted to make a list of them, he/she could make the list of whatever he/she knows and then let someone else finish it. (Whether or not a SMRPG enemy list would be suitable on Misplaced Pages is another story, but that's just an example.) Glenn Magus Harvey 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Cburnett 06:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some lists are complete, others are not. This template is a useful prompt to the editor, dispelling the inherent ambiguity of lists. The associated category provides a pointer to lists that could be expanded. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps there should be a "open-ended list" template, to prevent people from applying this one to open-ended lists? Maybe not. -- Beland 20:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can someone provide a link to the March 2005 discussion? —RaD Man (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful to label lists that could be, but are not yet, complete. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unprotected

This template seems to be well intentioned, but looks like unnecessary clutter for the reader and contains information that could just as well be placed in a comment at the top of the article containing advice for editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I support a delete, but I do think that it may be slightly useful in a few articles. Anyways, it's not worth it. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete slightly useful, but I support a note made by the admin on the talk page, at the time of unprotecting. This template could be userfied for those purposes. ∞Who?¿? 23:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could actually be harmful. Why bring other users into an edit war that's dying down? If there is still a dispute, {{NPOV}} would be appropriate. Otherwise, drop it. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless. Dunc|☺ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Superm401. pamri 07:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

July 17

Template:Begin code and Template:End code

  • Delete: Both are used on a single page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject C/Syntax highlighting, an apparently stillborn idea from nearly a year ago. The template's creator, User:Eequor, is the single edit to both the page and the templates. -Splash 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not exactly cluttering namespace that might be used for other things, it's not likely to cause trouble if it's used, and it's a good idea. That it is, at present, unused and appears to be part of an abandoned project is not sufficient reason to delete it. It's not hurting anything, so why get rid of it? Kurt Weber 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Because the deletion criteria say that not being used is a reason to delete. -Splash 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I'm going to propose that that be deleted from the deletion criteria; could we suspend this TfD until a decision is reached on that proposal? If not then I'll just archive them in my userspace, and then if the proposal passes (and "it's not being used" is the only significant argument for deleting these particular templates) Kurt Weber 21:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
        • No, we can't really just artbitrarily suspend policy. You might want to make your proposal at either the Village Pump or the instruction page's talk page. -Splash 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I already made the proposal...and I wasn't talking about "suspending policy", just suspending this particular vote until a yes or no is reached on the particular proposal I made. Kurt Weber 21:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Kurt, where did you make this proposal? Tomer 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
              • Thanks. Found at . Tomer 02:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Being unused" may be a sufficient reson for deletion, it is not a necessary reson -- in other words although we can delete soemthing unused, we don't have to. i find Kurt Weber's arguments above persuasive. DES 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The syntax highlighting proposal doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. In fact, the entire Misplaced Pages:WikiProject C doesn't seem to be all that active. On top of that, I don't think templates are going to be a good way to bring syntax highlighting to Misplaced Pages. This is something that (as far as I can see) could only be implemented effectively with new wiki markup. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Any programming code that is used in relation to an article should appear on Wikimedia Commons anyhow. --JB Adder | Talk 01:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - manual syntax highlighting is an exercise in tedium. Better to write an extension to do it. That the templates have sat around utterly unused for a very long time is a bonus. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I share Cyrius's sentiment. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Agree with Splash and and Cyrius about the usefulness of this template, but also with Kurt that this vote should be suspended until the (reportedly) proposed policy change is addressed. Tomer 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, could be useful, let's not eliminate the potential for usage by deleting them. JYolkowski // talk 22:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:20-cen

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

Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 01:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not useful. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, most articles in the Misplaced Pages would need it, and pretty much none do; this says that this template is a bad idea. -- Titoxd 05:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment as "author":
(a) 102 K using "20th" followed by "century" is about a bazillion, i guess, but "most" of 600K is over 300K, and
only 50% of the first ten of those Google hits could use the hyphen in their titles,
none could have used the template, without a construction like
List of {{subst:20-cen}} [[List of 20th century classical composers|classical composers]]
to produce the very odd and probably unhelpful
List of 20-century classical composers
and two more randomly chosen sets of 10 hits had 1 that could use a hyphen, and the template,
so 5% of 102K, or 5K is a sounder estimate than 300K,
(b) i may have used it more as (invisible) subst than as transclusion, so you have no idea how much i did,
(c) for reason of the same invisibility, no one else is likely to use it without its being better publicized,
(d) i'd have used it more if i could recall the mnemonic reliably, or could look it up other than in my voluminous watch-list
(e) one of the best reasons for it is to encourage the superscripting, which is never used e.g. within the number one Google hit, 20th century, nor within any of the top 10 hits,
(f) the other best reason for it is encourage the hyphen, which is applicable not to every instance, but only to the adjectivial uses, such as (choosing from those first ten hits) the titles
20th century classical music
List of 20th century classical composers
Category:20th century classical composers
Category:20th century philosophers
20th-century philosophy
of which all 5 call for the hyphen in the title but only the last i've named has it there;
(g) encouragement is needed, not just to overcome ignorance and carelessness, but bcz it's fussy wikimarkup: instead of the usual 16 chars for
]
(with 14 changes of key and two probable keyboard-peeks (one for each non-letter, non-digit, non-shift-key finger positioning), it takes 40 chars to do it right w/o the template, adding (efficiently, with a typo-saving cut&paste, but counting getting onto any shift key as the traditional half-stroke allowed for the case-shift key where the others are absent) not 14 keystrokes, but 29 further keystrokes and 9 further keyboard peeks,
(h) the previously undiscussed hyphen, IMO mandated for adjectivial use, may or not be why this tmplt was not deleted when the no-hyphen one was, much sooner after creation than this one.
--Jerzy·t 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
Keep It ain'o big thang, especially since i have no intention of being the one to do more than this to bring it to anyone else's attention. But here's a vote after all, on the chance that some minds might change in response to the second set of arguments that suggests anything near a thorough look at the question.
--Jerzy·t 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Template:2004Earthquake

Delete after subst:ing. This (badly named) template is just article text (which is forbidden in Misplaced Pages:Template namespace) about deaths in the tsunami. Only added tfd notice to talk page, but will leave notices on the articles' talks. -Splash 19:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Subst. As far as I know, the outcome of the article text/template debates was that they should be strongly discouraged and used only as a temporary solution, rather than forbidden per se. I assume the point of this was to be able to efficiently update the death toll across multiple pages. But now it's July and I think we can probably be done wiht this. Dragons flight 21:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Useless template. Should have just used plain text --Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 03:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete That's worthless. You can just type it in, why bother making a template it. --Genocide2st 08:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Advert

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

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

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

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

Template:TitleDisputed

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

  • Keep. This template has been used on a handful of articles for over 2 months without any complaints. It signifies the dispute is specific to the title whereas "NPOV-title" is overly broad and too general because it mentions subject matter and organization (could be a dispute over anything which lessens the fact to the reader that there is a legitimate neutrality dispute somewhere) and its font is too small. zen master T 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The editor is forgetting my complaints about its use on every page that he added it to. (see my vote and comments below). -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment {{TitleDisputed}} seems to be in much more frequent use than {{NPOV-title}} although neither is used all that much, unless they are normally substed, which seems unlikely. DES 06:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think there is much practical use for this tag. If there is a dispute on a title, they should be directed to use Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, by leaving a note on the users talk page. If for some odd reason there is a revert war, then one could use one of these tags. The more useful title should be used, and then placed on the templates page, where {{TitleNPOV}} already exists btw, and redirect to the non-deleted one. It seems that zen master has been in a few 3RR situations, and can only suggest that maybe a nice note on where to find the existing templates Misplaced Pages:Template messages and how to propose templates would be helpful to them later. ∞Who?¿? 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
{TitleDisputed} has been used on articles where there was no consensus for a new title (requested moves failed) and a legitimate neutrality dispute over the title remains. What is the relevance of 3RR as far as the quality of this template is concerned? Would netoholic's infamous history be relevant on this TfD using your logic then too? This template has been used for 2 months without complaint, it is more specific and clearer than {NPOV-title}. zen master T 09:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I appologize, I did not mean it in an offensive manner, I merely stated that your history showed that you did not defer to the discussion pages. As far as the title, like I said, I think the one that is used the most often or is easier, should be used, and one of them redirected. I did not mean to belittle your comments, only was trying to make the suggestion to view the discussions and propose template creation first, as I myself am guilty of doing. ∞Who?¿? 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Your post once again is inaccurate/suggestive, I defer to the talk page all the time (look at my ratio of talk page edits to article edits on editcount). To what articles are you referring specifically? How does supporting {TitleDisputed} not "defer" to the talk page?? Either there is a legitimate neutrality dispute or there is not. What about the point that {TitleDisputed} actually signifies specifically that the title is disputed whereas {NPOV-title} suggests that any number of multiple nebulous things could be disputed? zen master T 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Mainly referring to Template talk:TitleDisputed (note the red link, hence no discussion), may have saved a lot of the conflicts in its history. Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages, to propose the template and discuss its creation and format. These two places minimum. As for disputed titles, there was the other template, which could have been used. Now we have redundant templates, and I only made the suggestion that you propose the template, before creating it to avoid Tfd. ∞Who?¿? 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The need arose to signify that just the title of an article was disputed, {NPOV-title} is/was insufficient as it is too generic/nebulous. {TitleDisputed} has been accepted for over 2 months, someone could have suggested a move/merge on the template's talk page to spark a discussion rather than going ahead with a TfD. zen master T 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the two templates. I can see the use but we don't need two of them, so pick whatever wording/layout is best and redirect the other there. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other template is sufficient. This template was created simply to address one set of article titles that the community had a full discussion and vote.(Misplaced Pages talk:Conspiracy theory) The vote was clearly in favor of existing titles, yet the editor who proposed the original changes added this template to several articles anyway. I complained about it on each of the talk pages. Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories#Title disputed, Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#Disputed title, Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Disputed title and Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories#Disputed title. In each case the discussion tended more towards the suitability of applying the template than to the template itself. Nonetheless, its use has been discussed at some length previously. -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it is currently composed, this template is redundant with the NPOV-title template noted by User:Netoholic in the nomination. the rest here is a comment, not a vote extension I think there is a place for a "disputed title" template that is not POV-issue-related. I can imagine legitimate title disputes that have little to do with neutrality, so there must be such issues that have arisen. Is there a template to cover such "technical" or "academic" disputes? If not, then perhaps this relatively neutrally worded template title could be co-opted for that purpose. Just a thought. Courtland 23:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:LAME

We shouldn't advertise our past transgressions. The existence of WP:LAME is more than enough. This will only stir the pot. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

July 16

Template:Long NPOV

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

Template:Cleanuplo

(also the generated Category:Cleanup leftovers)

This "leftover" designation seems all-but abandoned. They now use Template:Cleanup-date. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanupcsh

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

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

Template:Cleanup-serious

(also the generated Category:Misplaced Pages serious cleanup)

This template is in serious need of deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-s & Template:Cleanuplite

More miniature versions of an established template. Orphaned, not worth redirecting. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious

Funny, but not an appropriate template. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Netoholic. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{delete}}. If something is patent nonsense, there's no point in cleaning it up except with a flamethrower. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a needed template, as nonsense falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. --Blu Aardvark | 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The only possible use I can see for this is as a decoy that can be used by sysops so that they can see which articles link to the template so that the articles can be speedy-deleted. Unfortunately, such use will catch articles for five minutes until someone figures out what the admins are doing and the template becomes useless. Then, I vote delete. -- Titoxd 06:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete...funny...did anyone bother to look at the choice of image for this template?  :-p Tomer 06:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg 20:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:MergeVfD

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

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

Template:Merge-tasks

Orphaned, no purpose. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:End Spoiler

Unused, poorly worded (I read this as "Details of the ending or end of plot"), and redundant to Template:Endspoiler (which is itself undocumented and barely used, but might be worth salvaging). —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions spoiler

Unused, and far, far too specific. —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Change

(see also Template:Space right below) Not a very useful math template, uniting topics as distinct as arithmetic and calculus (the former is not about change by the way). Calculus is a subset of analysis, so both should not be in that template. I believe this template is not very helpful. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Templates_for_thought seems to confirm that. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Space

(See also Template:Change right above). This template puts together a lot of articles having rather little in common, like Trigonometry, Algebraic topology, and Functional analysis. I doubt the concept of space is so important in trigonometry and also in fractal geometry listed there. In short, I don't think that template is terribly helpful for navigating between articles. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Magic-spoiler

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

  • Keep. Specific, yes, but I think it feels a meaningful niche. {{spoiler}} clearly isn't appropriate since magic tricks don't really have "plot and/or ending details". {{solution}} is a lot closer, but "Warning: Solution details follow" is really not a strong or specific enough warning to my taste. I would expect to see something like {{solution}} before the answer to a math problem or a riddle, i.e. the kind of problems that one could figure out by logical deduction. In most cases, magic tricks simply can't be figured out merely from a description of their appearance. As such, I favor the stronger warning for magic secrets. Dragons flight 07:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think one more spoiler template is going to kill us, and there is a good case for a difference in phrasing. Note that people are currently getting quite excited about the fact that Misplaced Pages reveals the secrets to magic tricks. I recently added this template to Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning. I wonder how many other spoiler templates exist that are not listed there. Bovlb 07:57:41, 2005-07-16 (UTC) rephrased Bovlb 17:43:25, 2005-07-16 (UTC)
  • Keep at least until the furor that Bovlb mentions dies down. (See Talk:Out of This World (card trick).) —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a very specific and special kind of spoiler, not like the more literary uses for {{spoiler}} and most of the other spoiler templates. A specific warning is very useflu in this case. DES 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with {{spoiler-about}} or {{spoiler-other}} as appropriate. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    Both of those still reference "plot and/or ending details", which is a poor fit for magic secrets, in my opinion. Dragons flight 08:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neither of the cited alternatives has applicable language. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree, the wording in the suggested alternatives seems quite inapplicable --Johnjosephbachir 18:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Unlike Template:spoiler (which is used for novels and movies) and Template:Solution (which is used for common mathematical problems), this spoiler warning actualy goes "behind-the-scenes" with a magic trick; thus, adding this to a magic trick article (eg sleight-of-hand) will tell the reader to steer from it if they do not want to destroy the 'magic' of the illusion. To say plot details follow or solution follows really are out-of-place in an article. --JB Adder | Talk 04:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note There is a discussion now going on at Template talk:Magic-spoiler about whether this template (assuming it is kept, as now seems likely to me) should retain its current image or be just a line of text. Anyone intersted in this matter, please join that discussion, so that a proper consensus can form. So far exactly two people have expressed views, one for and one against the image. DES 18:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep None of the proposed alternatives seem to appropriately work. -- Krash 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons everybody else has cited. — The Storm Surfer 17:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons. --U.U. 08:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was my first time seeing the template (on billet reading) and it was what I expected. Magic secrets are somewhere between plot spoilers and solutions; the secret is only a "solution" for those who were exclusively looking at it as an unsolved puzzle to begin with. I think the wording makes sense. --Closeapple 10:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a native speaker indicates that you have grown up in a scoiety speaking Latin, which is obviously impossible and hence misleading.

Template:Portal skeleton

This uses an old standard for creating a Wikiportal.A new template has replaced it {{box portal skeleton}} but sometime people still use this old one.Trevor macinnis 03:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Query? Since {{box portal skeleton}} doesn't actually seem to be in use presently, is there some reason why you don't copy the new template contents over the old template? Dragons flight 05:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • copy box portal skeleton to portal skeleton and redirect --MarSch 12:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I thought that the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Wikiportal were specific enough that people would use "box portal" instead of "portal" skeleton (several prominent pages now do, including some newly created ones), and these instuctions will probably need to be changed, but I support copy box portal skeleton to portal skeleton and redirect Trevor macinnis 16:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this one, Rename the other to not involve the skeleton as the name is misleading. Make it a prototype instead. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:User la

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

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

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

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

Holding Cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

(none at this time)

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

(none at this time)

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

Listings

Template:Sfd-current Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages, as per the TFD Instructions.

July 26

Template:Db:a1

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

Template:QOTD

Apparently a template for an abortive Quote of the day project. If this was being organized by the folks at Wikiquote as a daily feature, I'd love to see it. As is, it should be deleted. I'll let someone else have the fun of taking Misplaced Pages:Quote of the day to WP:VFD. BlankVerse ∅ 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Moved to Wiktionary

Delete as redundant to {{VFD}} and unused. --Dmcdevit·t 09:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Bordered

As meta templates go, this one is pretty egregious - it forces everything to be class="notice metadata" id="cleanup" in addition to the stylistic formatting, which really should be handled in css instead of a template. I've reverted it out of Template:spoiler and Template:endspoiler and pre-emptively substed it in Template:stub, Template:dynamic list, and Template:OntarioSH. Leaving it in the latter three at all was against my better judgement. —Cryptic (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - as said, CSS should handle this and not meta-templates. violet/riga (t) 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stub-base

Redundant to Template:Metastub. —Cryptic (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Redirectbug

And associated category Category:Redirectbug.

I can't figure out why this exists. It is only used on one page, and so I think subst'ing it in should be sufficient. There's no point to a template and creating a category for this. --Dmcdevit·t 00:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mathematics

This template not linked from any article. The templates {quantity}, {change}, {space} and {structure} mentioned in this template are themselves up for deletion below, it it seems they are going to be deleted. In addition, this template joins topics not having anything in common besides the fact that they are math. As such,

July 25

Template:Gay

Strange anon creation. Kill it. Dragons flight 08:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AcademicBoosterism

Created as a joke, being used in lieu of discussion. - Nunh-huh 23:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Hopeless. Also send the image to IFD after deletion of the template please. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Created as a joke? It's a real problem. The picture may be bland, but that should be an incentive to improve the article so the template goes away. (That was a joke.) Anville 00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This might be a problem, but I think it is merely a special case of non-NPOV issues (a strain of POV Disease, if you will). Courtland 01:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Anville. The template raises a good point. 69.17.20.106 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Points are to be raised on talk pages, not templates. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Courtland. Just another synonym for NPOV, and this template is more likely to discourage productive discussion than encourage it. Having a somewhat inflammatory name for a template that is intended to help resolve NPOV disputes is just silly. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
We have a science-fiction stub which is more specific than the general stub, and we have a Star Trek stub which is more specific still. What's wrong with a slightly more specific version of the NPOV banner? Anville 13:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Please read my comment again. I think I was fairly clear about my concern. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it does not relate to any part of Misplaced Pages policy that is not already covered by the various NPOV templates, and it has a design that is pretty unpleasant. -Splash 17:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If the article is not NPOV, tag it as such. This just lends itself to edit wars around the Harvard-Yale football game, for example.--SarekOfVulcan 19:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit, Keep, Make More. I agree with Courtland and others that this is a strain of POV disease, but I disagree that this is a reason for killing the template. {{NPOV}} and similar templates are warnings to the reader that something may be wrong with the article, however most of these templates do little to explain what the problem is. If we assume that many people read encyclopedia articles about subjects with which they are unfamiliar, then a naive reader may have no way of recognizing what the problem actually is. Because of this I would advocate the creation of either a number of general classes of NPOV templates to identify specific types of problems (of which this could be one), and/or the creation of a template {{POV-because}}, which could take a parameter for giving an explanation of what the POV problem is. I do think however, that all of the NPOV type templates need to conform to a similar style, and as such this would need to be redesigned without the ugly graphic and with a link to NPOV. Dragons flight 20:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I guess I don't have any specific problem with expanding the selection of POV indicators, as long as it is done in such a way that they are visually consistent, non-invasive, and non-inflammatory. This particular one fails each of those criteria but could certainly be cleaned up to conform. —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nature of how an article has strayed into non-NPOV should be described in gory detail (complete with blood stains from the debates) in the talk-space. True, the underlying reasons for putting the general non-NPOV template on are not obvious to the casual reader, but they should be clear to the reader who reads the article deeply and who takes the talk-space as part of the clarification of the article's treatment of the topic. Regards, Courtland 23:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Improve and keep. Changed vote, see below Yes, it's too big, it's too intrusive. Nunh-huh's comment that it's been used in lieu of discussion is fair. Academic boosterism is, however, a real problem, because it spreads from article to article and keeps reinfecting articles. Every few months I'll see a fresh crop of six paragraphs about "prestige" or U. S. News rankings sprouting up somewhere, and the justification given is always that some other school has done it, and theirs is much worse. The reason why I think it might be appropriate to use this in place of a standard NPOV is that I believe the warning should be weaker than the NPOV warning. Academic boosterism usually does not mean that the article is factually inaccurate. It's more a question of vanity, not bias. Taste, not accuracy. I, for one, want to be able to read about my alma mater without having a bunch of cardinal and gray butt feathers waved in my face, and I believe most other readers feel the same way. Other encyclopedias can talk about colleges without sounding like the admissions department, why can't we? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And this template will assist in producing such an article how? It was used to label about ten successive college articles - none of them with any particular issues regarding boosterism-- in a flurry of vandalism, and none of them with any notation on the accompanying talk page. Why should we make that easy? - Nunh-huh 22:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. First off, :) the way you (User:Dpbsmith) put things made me laugh. Thanks. I hadn't thought on the notion of a weaker version of non-NPOV warnings, but I can see your point. There was a discussion of "community pride" in some deletion-related debate a while ago and this relates to it in an indirect way; there is no reason for the pride of an author with regard to a topic to compromise the tone or factual accuracy of the treatment in the case of social organizations and institutions .. it is that pride among members that keeps such things in existence and leads them to grow, and to talk about them. I'll have to think some more on that and consider my vote in the context of your comments ... Courtland 23:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • As I've said elsewhere, this is a matter for a style guide, for reasoned discussion, or for collaborative editing. Applying a disparaging label to someone's enthusiasm for their school, and smashing that label in their face by plastering a template on the article they've contributed to does not seem like a step toward a solution to me. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nunh-huh has convinced me. (I hate it when that happens.) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete!. Redundant with {{NPOV}}. Unnecesary, unneeded. BlankVerse ∅ 13:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

July 24

Template:Song dynasty emperors

This template, and also Template:Song dynasty emperors1, have been superceded by the generic Template:Succession box template group. I've moved all articles that used them over to the succession box format. Bryan 19:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Song infobox

There's another one called Template:Single infobox already used on quite a few articles. So delete. -- pmam21articles 02:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, until migration is complete, no? It seems to be on quite a few articles. -Splash 17:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No offense, but it's only used in 4 articles (3 Beatles songs, 1 Rolling Stones). Migration will be really quick. If you're confused, Template:Single infobox is the on used alot, not the Song infobox.
  • Keep until either one template is used or a third is created from a merger. Infoboxes are complicated and useful beasts in general because they encourage the organization of (in many cases) mundane information, allowing the article text to tell a unique story about the topic. The deletion of one just because there is a competing one with overlapping scope isn't in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Courtland 00:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Similar comment to as above. Of course, templates are good. Anyway, the one up for deletion (Song infobox) is only in 4 articles. It will be quick. -- pmam21articles 11:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. These looks like an issue that should be handled by the participants at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Songs, instead of here at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 14:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm the original author of the template, and I see here that Template:Single infobox is pretty much the same and it was created earlier, so it should be the one that stays. If I had known that other one existed, I wouldn't have created Template:Song infobox. --Arcadian 16:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

July 22

Template:Quentin Tarantino films

Another directors template, incomplete at that, that should be categorified and deleted. ∞Who?¿? 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Asiamiles

This seems very similar to the WorldPerks template, which reached a consensus of categorize and delete. The same should be done with this. Dbinder 16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rikondakizoc

Looks like a nonsense template created by an anon IP with a minor history of creating nonsense articles. --Icelight 15:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:WP:RM

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

July 21

Template:Charleston County School of the Arts infobox

Template for a single school article, should be substed, there is no reason for this code to be in a template rather than the article. Joe D (t) 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. A single use template can be acceptable as a seperate entity if including it into the text of the page directly would interfere with editting the main page because of the size or complexity of the template's content. For example: {{Timeline Geological Timescale}}, {{Planet Infobox/Earth}}. This is fairly marginal on those grounds. No vote yet. Dragons flight 20:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The size and complexity of this particular template are only a concern because the template is needlessly large and complex. It was originally written in HTML; just by running it through this converter, I trimmed about 200 bytes off, and made it noticably more editable. Why a single school needs its own huge, fancy infobox is beyond me. Subst and Delete. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Subst and Delete seems a reasonable suggestion. Vegaswikian 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikt

A keystroke-saving template that doesn't. "{{subst:wikt|whatever}}" is five more characters than "]", and this template shouldn't ever be used unsubsted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The redirect to {{wiktionary}} (which superceded this) seems to be have been removed. May as well delete, as unused. Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately confuses the issue of links into Wiktionary by addition of a cryptically titled template. Further, it is my understanding that even {{wiktionary}} is now considered to be obsolete owing to the switching off of the article-title capitalisation rule in the software implementation for the project; {{wiktionarypar}} is the favored template for use now. On a side note, I would be suprised if the original template does not undergo some change to accomodate this software environment change. Courtland 02:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-school

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

Template:AD, Template:CE, Template:BCE and Template:BC

Redirect to the below - thus they have all the problems of ADCE and BCEBC, PLUS the fact that they're metatemplates. Strong delete. Radiant_>|< 12:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Point of information: These "metatemplates" cause no more or less problems than the "regular" templates they direct to. It is the number of pages on which a template (perhaps indirectly) appears that is the issue in terms of load. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. A template that includes another template (such as these four) causes twice the load of a template that does not. Radiant_>|< 12:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See below. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:ADCE and Template:BCEBC

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

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

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


  • Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless IMO, when you could type it yourself, AND with a wikilink which this does not (in this revision) allow. And if at some point in time we grow so litigious that some users want to see BC/AD and others BCE/CE, we'll make it a preferences option like the date/time rewriting. Garrett 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Weak Keep, now the mechanics are explained it seems quite sensible, although the complexity of adding and using it can hopefully be ironed out.
    • It is unreasonable for editors to be expected to remember and use CSS class names themselves, remembering a template is much easier. Sounds a bit like you also don't understand the purpose (admittedly if you are not using monobook this is understandable). See User:Pcb21/ADCE_testing_page for a little more detail. Pcb21| Pete 16:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. I only looked at the template code so didn't realise it actually did anything, it just looked like shorthand for "BCE/BC", much as someone once made a template to insert a standard bullet. Still I think there could be an easier way to do it. The dates convert without interference (merely ] around them), so there would ideally be a way to do this as well, maybe by putting YEAR beside it and it recognising and converting like with ISBN 0091801788 or whatnot. Garrett 08:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cleverly implements the preference option Garrett mentions. —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wi

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

  1. Since Misplaced Pages articles start with a capital and Wiktionary articles do not, the link will generally not work
  2. If we were to add a parameter to this to prevent problem 1, it would be redundant with Template:Wikt.
  3. Any article that consists of only a link to Wiktionary should instead be 1) expanded, or 2) redirected to a similar article that explains it (e.g. redirect a verb to a noun).
  • Radiant_>|< 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with the above reasons. — Ram-Man 13:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Re 1) and 2) Wiktionary redirects from caps to non-caps as a matter of course. Re 3). These aren't articles. These are Misplaced Pages:Soft redirects. The acceptability of these has been widely discussed and accepted in the past. There are many cases where they are the most natual thing to do. Pcb21| Pete 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • On top of that, I've just changed the implementation that helps when redirects are not in place. Pcb21| Pete 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary does not redirect from either capitalization to the other as a matter of course. Whilst redirects exist for many existing articles, that is merely a side-effect of a conversion script that was run once, just after the switch-over, to move the existing articles at the time to lowercase. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Point 1 is simply wrong since Wiktionary uses bots to make redirects from a capitalized to a lowercase form, unless a seperate entry exists at the capitalized form. (see below) So in nearly all cases the link should work. For Point 2, {{wi}} is much prettier than {{wikt}} as it should be since it is intended for otherwise blank pages. For point 3, one intended usage is to leave {{wi}} on pages that have been VFDed with the consensus of "move to wiktionary". This allows a useful link to exist at pages that have never been more than a dictdef. I know I have seen this used on a number of pages beyond what appears on "what links here", so I can only assume that it has been being used with subst:, or that many of those pages subsequently grew up into full wikipedia articles. Regardless, this should not be deleted. Dragons flight 15:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no 'bots performing such redirects at Wiktionary, and there never have been any. The redirects that now exist were created by a one-time process that didn't involve a 'bot. To my knowledge, there is only one 'bot running on Wiktionary at the moment, and it is performing interwiki links. (The few other 'bots that used to run were broken by the MediaWiki upgrade.) Also note that there is at least one user who systematically removes this template. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Who is systematically removing this template? Pcb21| Pete 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying that Uncle G, though I dare say I would wonder why they aren't redirecting uppercase to lowercase, and getting a bot to run on 1.5 is not that hard. Regardless, Pcb's change to directing at the search page would still work consistently, yes? Dragons flight 20:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have long disliked this template as it is so often applied to titles that actually deserve articles or disambig pages. - SimonP 17:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The template is already worded to encourage users to replace it if a internal-to-Misplaced Pages solution is better. Educating users about the intended use is much more useful than deleting the genuine uses. Pcb21| Pete 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but maybe reword a bit, I think this is the best solution for pages that people keep creating but will never be more than dicdefs. JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it cuts down on VFDs for dicdefs. Maybe a future version of mediawiki will have a better soft-redirect solution. Eliot 20:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. If it does cut down on vfd listings, it's because instead of actually deleting a bad, potential-free dicdef, this is just slapped on instead. This was originally meant to prevent recreations of common words, like under and carry. In that regard, I think {{deletedpage}} does the same making this redundant. It has also been misused and abused on pages that should be just delete outright, and aren't common enough to warrant any danger of recreation. I find it very unlikely that Jerrybuild needs this at all. Lastly, since its entire purpose is to be an interwiki link, or redirect, it is effectively no content. This does not make a valid encyclopedia article, in fact, it discourages one if its possible. It's interesting to note that the result of this template is to create an article that perfectly fits the CSD: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title." --Dmcdevit·t 21:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Religious persecution

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

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

Template:Harry Potter spoiler

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

  • maybe leave it for a couple of weeks, then delete it and revert to {{Spoiler}}. I think there are many people who will be very annoyed if they find out and the {{Spoiler}} warning may be not noticible enough for newbies. As for Episode III, I think everyone knew what was gonna happen in that. Supersaiyanplough| 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love the Harry Potter series, but the attitude of the people who write about it here is beginning to annoy. The template is needlessly specific. Superm401 | Talk 03:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and subst. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • delete a tad too specific. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for at least another week or so. This formatting popped up independently on multiple pages, and was reverted after being converted to the normal spoiler template. I created it to ease transition to {{spoiler}} once things slow down on these articles, as clearly explained on its talk page. Yes, it's overspecific, and large, and annoying, and redundant, but it's a much better solution than having this code on those pages instead of a template. Absolutely should not be substed in its current form, as TBSDY suggests - when deleted, it should be replaced with {{spoiler}}. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant. --] 05:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. Radiant_>|< 08:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ram-Man 13:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until 1 August, per Cryptic. Then Delete. If we create a Template: New publication spoiler, less visible than this one, but more visible than Template:spoiler, we can avoid this discussion next year. Septentrionalis 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I guess it could be made a bit smaller, but it is very helpful. I had just finished HBP and was looking at the Wizarding World page. It spoils who dies right there! I thought that the regular spoiler template meant it only had spoilers for the first five books.Keep for at least three more weeks. It takes some people a long time to read the books. It can get smaller over that time.Phoenix Song 16:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace all instances of this template with {{spoiler}}. I don't think HBP-specific spoilers require their own templates. --Deathphoenix 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have our lovely Template:Spoiler! --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and use {{spoiler-about}} to make it clar that the spoilers are for the new work, where this might not be obvious. DES 18:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Book 6 was spoiled for me when carlessly reading an article that just had a regular spoiler warning. I was not expecting, that the information was updated so soon and that such spoilers would be at places where I did not expect them (of course I would not have read sections that were specific to book 6). Leave it for one or two weeks, that should be enough to warn other careless readers like me. -- 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - waaaay too specific. We do not need a template just for spoilers in one book series. Find a better way of doing it. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The regular spoiler warning is sufficient. Anyone that claims otherwise is, in my opinion, such a careless reader then they would probably have missed half the plot reading the book anyway. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - regular spoiler warning sufficient. Ingoolemo  02:18, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. The generic spoiler warning is actually insufficient in my interpretation. zen master T 07:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mind either way, as long as you remove all the old spoiler warnings for the previous books. 14:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Do we really want or need 5,000 different spoiler templates? If we keep this one, why not create a new one for every article? Makes no sense and defeats the entire purpose of a template. Gblaz 15:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't exactly understand the point in deleting a template just because it's narrow. We may be only able to use it for an article or two, but is it really taking up space on the site or something? --SeizureDog 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least use the {{Spoiler}} format. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. {{spoiler}} works fine. -Hmib 17:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete / replace with {{spoiler-about}}. Agreed that this is too specific; apologies to the Harry Potter fans but if this template survives then that would be considered tacit support for dozens, neh hundreds of topic-specific spoilers, which I doubt many people would find beneficial. Courtland 01:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comments: Regarding the concern that this template should be retained until a specified time ... it might be appropriate to use {{Current}} or create a template that deals specifically with time-sensitive spoiler information. With regard to immediate obsolescence, information on the content of works that have not yet been published isn't really something we should encourage for inclusion in an encyclopedia, in my opinion, as it is not descriptive but (in many cases) speculative or (in some cases) ill-gotten (i.e. from a stolen copy of a screenplay published on the internet, for instance .. talking in general terms here and not specifically on the Harry Potter matter). Courtland 02:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

July 20

Template:ImportantLabeledEquation

A dotted box style for displaying equations. The mathematicians over here seem to think that an equation is better off without any box around it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Dotted_framebox_around_formulas (that was discussed in other places too). Oleg Alexandrov 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

July 19

Template:Sopranos

A very long list of Sopranos character articles, redundant with Category:The Sopranos characters. This template is rather large, obtrusive, and unnecessary. Postdlf 19:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Europe

12 keep/5 delete/1 replace

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

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

  • Keep Alinor 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) correction of the introduction - the Turkey question is closed since a long time ago. 10 other states/issues are also closed - conclusion reached. There remain only 3 to close. Pools may be unwiki, but the template is usefull on its own and it should not be deleted becouse of a minor issue with 2 remaining unsettled states (and the Flag). The place for the pool/discussion is also not on the template-page (preferable places: pages for each disputable country, and also here), but is already there for a long time. A category or a list (as in the main Europe article) is not the same as a template - the template is visualizing in a much more compact way the whole information and it has other advantages. To summurize: 'keep' the template; eventualy 'move' the discussion and/or the pool; eventualy 'cancel' the pool.
  • Keep Perfectly OK template needed in some places. FearÉIREANN\ 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because concept is reasonable whether it lists all members or only identifies membership. Whether implemented as a template or category, membership indicator is OK. And I won't vote to delete as a "test" of some sort when that should be resolved through other process than deletion through a backwater vote. (SEWilco 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep, type-boxes are useful. James F. (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Useful. Nightstallion 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is useful --*drew 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Templates and categories are not at war. "There can be only one!" is not a truism. Unfocused 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is relevant and useful. --Valentinian 22:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Are we going to delete all similar boxes now? —Cantus…☎ 11:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Septentrionalis 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is exactly what categories and lists are for. Note that the debate over which countries are part of eutope could just as well take place over a category or a list -- this template would be a bad idea if there were no debate at all -- a similer template for States of the US should likewise be deleted. DES 18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete iff other contintent-templates are also deleted. If this nomination has been motivated by the poll precedings, then I might like to point out that the very same problems may be encountered by a category - which to include and exclude. -- Joolz 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, one template for this purpose is useful but two is not. No forks please. Radiant_>|< 09:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because the countries of Europe are easily found elsewhere and because it clogs up some pages, Sweden has two templates at the bottom besides this. --Fred-Chess 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see what's wrong with a visualization of European countries. Yes, it might be open to reinterpretation and revision, but so is every other encyclopedia article. That's no reason for deletion. Aecis 12:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Important overview template.--ThomasK 14:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This and similar templates are very useful. Going via a Category is a loss of time. A template is much quicker when you want to quickly compare several countries from the same continent/group. Luis rib 19:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Calculus2

Old version of Template:Calculus. I doubt it is worth keeping it. If somebody would really like to see how the calculus template looks like, one could see the page history. Oleg Alexandrov 13:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Atten and Template:Atten lite

Delete created by an anon, and unused; also broken. Look like a suggestion for something to be used over at Misplaced Pages:Pages needing attention, but none of those pages have a table that needs this. I left a message on the anon's talk page just in case.-Splash 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: there are some uses of {{arttalk}} which give a visually similar effect, and so the nominees are also redundant with this. -Splash 01:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:UNmembers

Delete: Something that is much better served as a category. Only used on two articles. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

July 18

Template:USNavyAwards

Previously only linked to one article. Really no point to keeping it. Actual table has been copied to that article. K1Bond007 22:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:MathematicsCOTW

This template is obsolete. It is replaced by Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. --R.Koot 18:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Simple housekeeping rather than a decision on content or display. Pcb21| Pete 21:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obsolete. -- Titoxd 05:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. BTW, this template is really ugly, I suggest something like Template:GCOTW. See below: -Hyad 08:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Gaming collaboration of the week This article is a candidate for Gaming Collaboration of the week. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.
Have you looked at the new template? It is already merged :). And it's meant to be put on the WikiPortal, there's a different template for articles (which looks like the one above). --R.Koot 11:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
This is the current mathematics collaboration of the week! You are encouraged to edit this article, so that it may meet a higher standard of quality.

Oleg Alexandrov 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Israel and Template:Israel infobox

Template:Infobox Country is used in the Israel article instead. 500LL 15:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Listdev (and Category:Incomplete lists)

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

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

  • Keep Useful note to readers. In addition, as Courtland suggested, a Comprehensive List template and category should be added.
  • Mild Keep There are lists of clearly enumerable items which ought to be complete. A hypothetical "List of all US Presidents" for example, should be complete, and if it isn't, a tag like this should warn the reader not to rely on it and encourage any editor to complete it. On the other hand List of legal terms or a hypothetical "List of Historical Novels" by their nature can't be expected to be complete, and certianly can't be proved compelete at any specific point. This tag should be reserved for soerts of list that a reader would naturally expect to be complete an even definitave, and warn when they fail of this standard. It should not be used on open-ended lists. With this limitation (which should be documeted on a proper talk page) I think the tempalte is of value I assume the category is simply of pages that havbe been tagged with the template. If so, the same remarks would apply. DES 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as above. While it shouldn't be used for open-ended lists, it's a useful tool to let people know that a (generally) static list is not complete, such as the list of SkyTeam Destinations. Dbinder 14:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Many lists on Misplaced Pages are enumerable, but incomplete. Kaldari 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep--Striver 03:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note I have added a usage note to the template's talk page, and i hav started to remove it from open-ended lists, which seem to be the majority of the places it has been used, of which there are over 2200. DES 18:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An "incomplete list" should be regarded as a list equivalent of a stub. – Kpalion (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep I remember seeing another similar template up for deleteion vote about a month or two ago and the result was to use this one and delete the other. slambo 18:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC) -- I just remembered, the previous vote was over Template:Expand list which is now a redirect to this template. slambo 18:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very useful template. --] 19:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is useful when the reader might otherwise be justified in assuming that the list is complete when in reality it is not. Lists which are only of "notable" entries would not necessarily need the template, but it really comes in handy otherwise. --BaronLarf 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Currently written as if it should be used on article pages. But this sort of "please expand" information is clearly for editors, so should go on talk page. Second choice: Reword and limit to talk pages only. Pcb21| Pete 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. By the way, there is the Dynamic list template (see Category:Dynamic lists) for the "incomplete and will never be complete lists". — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regardless of whether a list will ever be complete, users can still be informed that the list is incomplete and that they can help expand it.  BRIAN0918  23:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.Useful for works in progress. Walkerma 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful template. Guettarda 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.The lack of completeness in a list is an important piece of information with respect to interpretation of the context and validity of the list. However, considering the comments about most lists being incomplete (those which are not in the dynamic-class, that is), maybe we should consider making a replacement template ... {{completelist}} => "to the best of our knowledge, this list is exhaustive and complete" ... which would be used on far fewer lists and would have a higher semantic value. Just a thought. Until such a debate has been raised and born fruit, let's keep this template or one of its cousins ({{expand list}}, for instance). Also, I think this template should appear in the article space and not in the discussion space (referring to some comments in an earlier delete vote above). Courtland 23:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This template is in use by many thousands of articles, justifying it's usefulness. It also welcomes new visitors to add new information to the article. --Alterego 01:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very useful for many articles. --Arbiteroftruth 03:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful for pointing out lists that are woefully incomplete and encouraging edits. --Kzollman 04:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I do admit though that almost every list of whatever has the potential for needing further edits.
  • Keep. extremely useful. Not sure who made the last edit, but it's not strictly true - many lists have a finite number of possible members. A list of 20th century heads of state may be incomplete on Misplaced Pages (if such a list exists), but it is a finite list. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No need to even justify. (rolling eyes). Nelson Ricardo 08:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful. jni 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly. Dmn / Դմն 10:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Brian0918 mentioned, while some lists may never be truly completed, there is a difference between "almost complete" and "woefully incomplete"; despite the wording, I think the template serves to stave off the latter pretty well.--Mitsukai 13:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is useful for lists whose members can be determined with a reasonable amount of effort. Obviously it doesn't apply for open-ended lists. Superm401 | Talk 19:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful. Some lists can be completed. --Locarno 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful for lists that have a finite member count, but where the original author e.g. did not have the knowledge to supply all members. Both useful for readers (as a warning) and editors (as an encouragement). Perhaps even useful for some not-so finite lists. For instance a hypothetical list Norse mythical beings featuring only "Verðandi" could perhaps use this template. Shinobu 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sarge Baldy 23:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Kee
  • Keep - I think it does serve a useful purpose. --Shawn K. Quinn 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Useful. For example, see its use at the article on My System, where it is used to mark a list of book editions. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Useful for many of the above reasons. ~ Dpr 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all newbies realize they can edit wikipedia, and many lists are incomplete, thus this list is useful for at least two reasons. -JCarriker 12:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. While it is certainly true that almost any article can be updated there are specific lists which are in obvious need of expansion. MadMax 23:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is such a thing as a complete list (czars of Russia), ergo, there is such a thing as an incomplete list. Just because incomplete is in the majority doesn't mean it should be taken for granted that all lists are complete. jengod 18:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many people might not know all of something, but would at least like to start the list. First, the template alerts other people who visit the article that the list is incomplete; second, the category alerts other people browsing for work that that list is incomplete. For example, if a person knew most of the enemy names from Super Mario RPG, but not all, yet wanted to make a list of them, he/she could make the list of whatever he/she knows and then let someone else finish it. (Whether or not a SMRPG enemy list would be suitable on Misplaced Pages is another story, but that's just an example.) Glenn Magus Harvey 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Cburnett 06:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some lists are complete, others are not. This template is a useful prompt to the editor, dispelling the inherent ambiguity of lists. The associated category provides a pointer to lists that could be expanded. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps there should be a "open-ended list" template, to prevent people from applying this one to open-ended lists? Maybe not. -- Beland 20:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can someone provide a link to the March 2005 discussion? —RaD Man (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful to label lists that could be, but are not yet, complete. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unprotected

This template seems to be well intentioned, but looks like unnecessary clutter for the reader and contains information that could just as well be placed in a comment at the top of the article containing advice for editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I support a delete, but I do think that it may be slightly useful in a few articles. Anyways, it's not worth it. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete slightly useful, but I support a note made by the admin on the talk page, at the time of unprotecting. This template could be userfied for those purposes. ∞Who?¿? 23:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could actually be harmful. Why bring other users into an edit war that's dying down? If there is still a dispute, {{NPOV}} would be appropriate. Otherwise, drop it. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless. Dunc|☺ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Superm401. pamri 07:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

July 17

Template:Begin code and Template:End code

  • Delete: Both are used on a single page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject C/Syntax highlighting, an apparently stillborn idea from nearly a year ago. The template's creator, User:Eequor, is the single edit to both the page and the templates. -Splash 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not exactly cluttering namespace that might be used for other things, it's not likely to cause trouble if it's used, and it's a good idea. That it is, at present, unused and appears to be part of an abandoned project is not sufficient reason to delete it. It's not hurting anything, so why get rid of it? Kurt Weber 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Because the deletion criteria say that not being used is a reason to delete. -Splash 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I'm going to propose that that be deleted from the deletion criteria; could we suspend this TfD until a decision is reached on that proposal? If not then I'll just archive them in my userspace, and then if the proposal passes (and "it's not being used" is the only significant argument for deleting these particular templates) Kurt Weber 21:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
        • No, we can't really just artbitrarily suspend policy. You might want to make your proposal at either the Village Pump or the instruction page's talk page. -Splash 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I already made the proposal...and I wasn't talking about "suspending policy", just suspending this particular vote until a yes or no is reached on the particular proposal I made. Kurt Weber 21:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Kurt, where did you make this proposal? Tomer 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
              • Thanks. Found at . Tomer 02:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Being unused" may be a sufficient reson for deletion, it is not a necessary reson -- in other words although we can delete soemthing unused, we don't have to. i find Kurt Weber's arguments above persuasive. DES 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The syntax highlighting proposal doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. In fact, the entire Misplaced Pages:WikiProject C doesn't seem to be all that active. On top of that, I don't think templates are going to be a good way to bring syntax highlighting to Misplaced Pages. This is something that (as far as I can see) could only be implemented effectively with new wiki markup. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Any programming code that is used in relation to an article should appear on Wikimedia Commons anyhow. --JB Adder | Talk 01:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - manual syntax highlighting is an exercise in tedium. Better to write an extension to do it. That the templates have sat around utterly unused for a very long time is a bonus. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I share Cyrius's sentiment. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Agree with Splash and and Cyrius about the usefulness of this template, but also with Kurt that this vote should be suspended until the (reportedly) proposed policy change is addressed. Tomer 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, could be useful, let's not eliminate the potential for usage by deleting them. JYolkowski // talk 22:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:20-cen

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

Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 01:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not useful. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, most articles in the Misplaced Pages would need it, and pretty much none do; this says that this template is a bad idea. -- Titoxd 05:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment as "author":
(a) 102 K using "20th" followed by "century" is about a bazillion, i guess, but "most" of 600K is over 300K, and
only 50% of the first ten of those Google hits could use the hyphen in their titles,
none could have used the template, without a construction like
List of {{subst:20-cen}} [[List of 20th century classical composers|classical composers]]
to produce the very odd and probably unhelpful
List of 20-century classical composers
and two more randomly chosen sets of 10 hits had 1 that could use a hyphen, and the template,
so 5% of 102K, or 5K is a sounder estimate than 300K,
(b) i may have used it more as (invisible) subst than as transclusion, so you have no idea how much i did,
(c) for reason of the same invisibility, no one else is likely to use it without its being better publicized,
(d) i'd have used it more if i could recall the mnemonic reliably, or could look it up other than in my voluminous watch-list
(e) one of the best reasons for it is to encourage the superscripting, which is never used e.g. within the number one Google hit, 20th century, nor within any of the top 10 hits,
(f) the other best reason for it is encourage the hyphen, which is applicable not to every instance, but only to the adjectivial uses, such as (choosing from those first ten hits) the titles
20th century classical music
List of 20th century classical composers
Category:20th century classical composers
Category:20th century philosophers
20th-century philosophy
of which all 5 call for the hyphen in the title but only the last i've named has it there;
(g) encouragement is needed, not just to overcome ignorance and carelessness, but bcz it's fussy wikimarkup: instead of the usual 16 chars for
]
(with 14 changes of key and two probable keyboard-peeks (one for each non-letter, non-digit, non-shift-key finger positioning), it takes 40 chars to do it right w/o the template, adding (efficiently, with a typo-saving cut&paste, but counting getting onto any shift key as the traditional half-stroke allowed for the case-shift key where the others are absent) not 14 keystrokes, but 29 further keystrokes and 9 further keyboard peeks,
(h) the previously undiscussed hyphen, IMO mandated for adjectivial use, may or not be why this tmplt was not deleted when the no-hyphen one was, much sooner after creation than this one.
--Jerzy·t 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
Keep It ain'o big thang, especially since i have no intention of being the one to do more than this to bring it to anyone else's attention. But here's a vote after all, on the chance that some minds might change in response to the second set of arguments that suggests anything near a thorough look at the question.
--Jerzy·t 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Template:2004Earthquake

Delete after subst:ing. This (badly named) template is just article text (which is forbidden in Misplaced Pages:Template namespace) about deaths in the tsunami. Only added tfd notice to talk page, but will leave notices on the articles' talks. -Splash 19:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Subst. As far as I know, the outcome of the article text/template debates was that they should be strongly discouraged and used only as a temporary solution, rather than forbidden per se. I assume the point of this was to be able to efficiently update the death toll across multiple pages. But now it's July and I think we can probably be done wiht this. Dragons flight 21:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Useless template. Should have just used plain text --Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 03:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete That's worthless. You can just type it in, why bother making a template it. --Genocide2st 08:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Advert

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

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

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

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

Template:TitleDisputed

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

  • Keep. This template has been used on a handful of articles for over 2 months without any complaints. It signifies the dispute is specific to the title whereas "NPOV-title" is overly broad and too general because it mentions subject matter and organization (could be a dispute over anything which lessens the fact to the reader that there is a legitimate neutrality dispute somewhere) and its font is too small. zen master T 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The editor is forgetting my complaints about its use on every page that he added it to. (see my vote and comments below). -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment {{TitleDisputed}} seems to be in much more frequent use than {{NPOV-title}} although neither is used all that much, unless they are normally substed, which seems unlikely. DES 06:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think there is much practical use for this tag. If there is a dispute on a title, they should be directed to use Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, by leaving a note on the users talk page. If for some odd reason there is a revert war, then one could use one of these tags. The more useful title should be used, and then placed on the templates page, where {{TitleNPOV}} already exists btw, and redirect to the non-deleted one. It seems that zen master has been in a few 3RR situations, and can only suggest that maybe a nice note on where to find the existing templates Misplaced Pages:Template messages and how to propose templates would be helpful to them later. ∞Who?¿? 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
{TitleDisputed} has been used on articles where there was no consensus for a new title (requested moves failed) and a legitimate neutrality dispute over the title remains. What is the relevance of 3RR as far as the quality of this template is concerned? Would netoholic's infamous history be relevant on this TfD using your logic then too? This template has been used for 2 months without complaint, it is more specific and clearer than {NPOV-title}. zen master T 09:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I appologize, I did not mean it in an offensive manner, I merely stated that your history showed that you did not defer to the discussion pages. As far as the title, like I said, I think the one that is used the most often or is easier, should be used, and one of them redirected. I did not mean to belittle your comments, only was trying to make the suggestion to view the discussions and propose template creation first, as I myself am guilty of doing. ∞Who?¿? 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Your post once again is inaccurate/suggestive, I defer to the talk page all the time (look at my ratio of talk page edits to article edits on editcount). To what articles are you referring specifically? How does supporting {TitleDisputed} not "defer" to the talk page?? Either there is a legitimate neutrality dispute or there is not. What about the point that {TitleDisputed} actually signifies specifically that the title is disputed whereas {NPOV-title} suggests that any number of multiple nebulous things could be disputed? zen master T 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Mainly referring to Template talk:TitleDisputed (note the red link, hence no discussion), may have saved a lot of the conflicts in its history. Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages, to propose the template and discuss its creation and format. These two places minimum. As for disputed titles, there was the other template, which could have been used. Now we have redundant templates, and I only made the suggestion that you propose the template, before creating it to avoid Tfd. ∞Who?¿? 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The need arose to signify that just the title of an article was disputed, {NPOV-title} is/was insufficient as it is too generic/nebulous. {TitleDisputed} has been accepted for over 2 months, someone could have suggested a move/merge on the template's talk page to spark a discussion rather than going ahead with a TfD. zen master T 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the two templates. I can see the use but we don't need two of them, so pick whatever wording/layout is best and redirect the other there. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other template is sufficient. This template was created simply to address one set of article titles that the community had a full discussion and vote.(Misplaced Pages talk:Conspiracy theory) The vote was clearly in favor of existing titles, yet the editor who proposed the original changes added this template to several articles anyway. I complained about it on each of the talk pages. Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories#Title disputed, Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#Disputed title, Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Disputed title and Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories#Disputed title. In each case the discussion tended more towards the suitability of applying the template than to the template itself. Nonetheless, its use has been discussed at some length previously. -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it is currently composed, this template is redundant with the NPOV-title template noted by User:Netoholic in the nomination. the rest here is a comment, not a vote extension I think there is a place for a "disputed title" template that is not POV-issue-related. I can imagine legitimate title disputes that have little to do with neutrality, so there must be such issues that have arisen. Is there a template to cover such "technical" or "academic" disputes? If not, then perhaps this relatively neutrally worded template title could be co-opted for that purpose. Just a thought. Courtland 23:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:LAME

We shouldn't advertise our past transgressions. The existence of WP:LAME is more than enough. This will only stir the pot. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

July 16

Template:Long NPOV

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

Template:Cleanuplo

(also the generated Category:Cleanup leftovers)

This "leftover" designation seems all-but abandoned. They now use Template:Cleanup-date. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanupcsh

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

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

Template:Cleanup-serious

(also the generated Category:Misplaced Pages serious cleanup)

This template is in serious need of deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-s & Template:Cleanuplite

More miniature versions of an established template. Orphaned, not worth redirecting. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious

Funny, but not an appropriate template. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Netoholic. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{delete}}. If something is patent nonsense, there's no point in cleaning it up except with a flamethrower. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a needed template, as nonsense falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. --Blu Aardvark | 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The only possible use I can see for this is as a decoy that can be used by sysops so that they can see which articles link to the template so that the articles can be speedy-deleted. Unfortunately, such use will catch articles for five minutes until someone figures out what the admins are doing and the template becomes useless. Then, I vote delete. -- Titoxd 06:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete...funny...did anyone bother to look at the choice of image for this template?  :-p Tomer 06:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg 20:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:MergeVfD

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

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

Template:Merge-tasks

Orphaned, no purpose. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:End Spoiler

Unused, poorly worded (I read this as "Details of the ending or end of plot"), and redundant to Template:Endspoiler (which is itself undocumented and barely used, but might be worth salvaging). —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions spoiler

Unused, and far, far too specific. —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Change

(see also Template:Space right below) Not a very useful math template, uniting topics as distinct as arithmetic and calculus (the former is not about change by the way). Calculus is a subset of analysis, so both should not be in that template. I believe this template is not very helpful. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Templates_for_thought seems to confirm that. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Space

(See also Template:Change right above). This template puts together a lot of articles having rather little in common, like Trigonometry, Algebraic topology, and Functional analysis. I doubt the concept of space is so important in trigonometry and also in fractal geometry listed there. In short, I don't think that template is terribly helpful for navigating between articles. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Magic-spoiler

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

  • Keep. Specific, yes, but I think it feels a meaningful niche. {{spoiler}} clearly isn't appropriate since magic tricks don't really have "plot and/or ending details". {{solution}} is a lot closer, but "Warning: Solution details follow" is really not a strong or specific enough warning to my taste. I would expect to see something like {{solution}} before the answer to a math problem or a riddle, i.e. the kind of problems that one could figure out by logical deduction. In most cases, magic tricks simply can't be figured out merely from a description of their appearance. As such, I favor the stronger warning for magic secrets. Dragons flight 07:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think one more spoiler template is going to kill us, and there is a good case for a difference in phrasing. Note that people are currently getting quite excited about the fact that Misplaced Pages reveals the secrets to magic tricks. I recently added this template to Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning. I wonder how many other spoiler templates exist that are not listed there. Bovlb 07:57:41, 2005-07-16 (UTC) rephrased Bovlb 17:43:25, 2005-07-16 (UTC)
  • Keep at least until the furor that Bovlb mentions dies down. (See Talk:Out of This World (card trick).) —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a very specific and special kind of spoiler, not like the more literary uses for {{spoiler}} and most of the other spoiler templates. A specific warning is very useflu in this case. DES 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with {{spoiler-about}} or {{spoiler-other}} as appropriate. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    Both of those still reference "plot and/or ending details", which is a poor fit for magic secrets, in my opinion. Dragons flight 08:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neither of the cited alternatives has applicable language. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree, the wording in the suggested alternatives seems quite inapplicable --Johnjosephbachir 18:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Unlike Template:spoiler (which is used for novels and movies) and Template:Solution (which is used for common mathematical problems), this spoiler warning actualy goes "behind-the-scenes" with a magic trick; thus, adding this to a magic trick article (eg sleight-of-hand) will tell the reader to steer from it if they do not want to destroy the 'magic' of the illusion. To say plot details follow or solution follows really are out-of-place in an article. --JB Adder | Talk 04:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note There is a discussion now going on at Template talk:Magic-spoiler about whether this template (assuming it is kept, as now seems likely to me) should retain its current image or be just a line of text. Anyone intersted in this matter, please join that discussion, so that a proper consensus can form. So far exactly two people have expressed views, one for and one against the image. DES 18:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep None of the proposed alternatives seem to appropriately work. -- Krash 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons everybody else has cited. — The Storm Surfer 17:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons. --U.U. 08:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was my first time seeing the template (on billet reading) and it was what I expected. Magic secrets are somewhere between plot spoilers and solutions; the secret is only a "solution" for those who were exclusively looking at it as an unsolved puzzle to begin with. I think the wording makes sense. --Closeapple 10:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a native speaker indicates that you have grown up in a scoiety speaking Latin, which is obviously impossible and hence misleading.

Template:Portal skeleton

This uses an old standard for creating a Wikiportal.A new template has replaced it {{box portal skeleton}} but sometime people still use this old one.Trevor macinnis 03:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Query? Since {{box portal skeleton}} doesn't actually seem to be in use presently, is there some reason why you don't copy the new template contents over the old template? Dragons flight 05:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • copy box portal skeleton to portal skeleton and redirect --MarSch 12:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I thought that the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Wikiportal were specific enough that people would use "box portal" instead of "portal" skeleton (several prominent pages now do, including some newly created ones), and these instuctions will probably need to be changed, but I support copy box portal skeleton to portal skeleton and redirect Trevor macinnis 16:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this one, Rename the other to not involve the skeleton as the name is misleading. Make it a prototype instead. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:User la

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

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

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

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

Holding Cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

(none at this time)

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

(none at this time)

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.
 Category:
Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions Add topic