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

Period of comment: 5 September PM – 9 September PM (+one late comment): 4 days
Removed from TfD: 13 September AM: 7.2 days (yay!)

Template:FAD

Tagged for speedy by User:Hydnjo as "a redirect with no links except to my talk page". There is, however, disagreement on Template talk:FAD and the tag has been both removed and replaced. So it comes here instead. No notvote from me. -Splash 04:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I had originally chosen this template title for documenting on a featured article's talk page the date on which the article was published on the Main page. The title was intended as an acronym for Featured Article Date. After some discussion with Rick Block we decided that the title was not a good choice and moved the template to Template:Mainpage date.The reasoning for the move was that the acronym was in conflict with its intended meaning of Main page publication date and in fact may give the misleading impression that it was the date of promotion to featured article and additionally, using an acronym gives no hint as to a template's function and thus is easily overlooked in list of templates or any other cataloging scheme. I don't disagree with the notion of a "shortcut" title redirect, I just don't think that this is the right one. hydnjo talk 12:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedily, per
  WP:CSD#General #7. Hyndjo created it, renamed it, and has asked the resultant redirect be deleted due to a potential naming confusion. -- Rick Block (talk
  ) 14:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I fail to see how it falls into
  d}} and {{db}}. But now that I have thought about it, I specifically vote Delete because this is not really a good acronym to have. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I forgot my edit to the template was before it was moved, so yes CSD-General#7 does not technically apply. Not to belabor the point, but I believe the spirit of this speedy criteria certainly applies (particularly since I made the only other change to the template and I'm agreeing to the speedy). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rd232 16:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mpartprotected

This template should probably be kept, in case it is helpful, for the same reasons I voted to keep the template immediately below this (its sister template). Keeping it won't hurt anything; however, in the Spirit of intellectual honesty, I am listing this template in the {{tfd}} page here ,to get clear community concensus and review.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It can't hurt to keep it, and, for the reasons listed below, in the vote of its sister template, it could prove very useful. "What can it hurt to keep these two templates?"--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What's the difference between the two, besides that Template:ProtectedMainPageArticle has the wrong category? --Carnildo 03:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: I'm just a dumb college-educated country boy, and I am not an expert in templates -by any stretch of the means, but I found that I had to create this other template to make the one below list the right title -don't ask my why, but it had to be, in order for its sister template to fully work: The "image protect" was set up this way, and I merely copied the format, and changed a few things around.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons cited
  Lifeisunfair 03:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as below. Septentrionalis 18:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ProtectedMainPageArticle

Standard procedure, established after much arguing all over the place, is that articles on the main page, featured or otherwise, are not protected. It is felt that the improvement that results outweighs the brief period of vandalism that results. --Carnildo 00:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is felt that the improvement that results outweighs the brief period of vandalism that results." Oh? Then, why, pray tell, must you insist on not deleting these "image" templates, displayed here? (and shown below)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mpimgprotected

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ProtectedMainPageImage

Apparently, there is sufficient vandalism. See the template talk page here here please before you act in a way which contradicts your own lack of actions in regards to the image protect templates.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image protection is for images that are actually displayed on the main page not for stuff linked from it. IMO that’s quite a significant difference. Also images are far less likely to receive constructive updates than articles. Plugwash 00:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world, Plugwash, that would be OK, but tell that to the editor (only one, who shall remain nameless) at Schiavo who keeps opposing documented past consensus and throwing a perfectly good Featured Article candidate into instability.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I do not see any policy to support this template. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented or asked clarification of most or all the others who voted below, and I don't want to cheat you, lol, Evil Monkey: So, I would like to point out contra, I see neither policy nor logical reasoning to delete this template (nor its sister template above). I could be wrong here, but what would it hurt to keep these templates?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The template would only protect the article for 24-hours while it basked in the light of main page. Besides, we protect images.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The use of this template is a violation of the protection policy. →Raul654 00:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification sought: I just got finished looking at both Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace and Wikipedia:Template_namespace, Mark, and I see no such "policy." Where is policy on this located? Even if I am out-voted here (and I may be wrong??), there should be a page on policy, and if there isn't one, it should be incorperated in policy -if indeed it is a good idea and concept.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the Protection policy does allow for highly visible pages to be protected, this has never been extended to include pages link from visible pages (e.g, pages linked from the main page) - hence by above comment. When others have suggested protecting main page featured articles in the past (and it's been suggested quite often) I have repeatedly scolded them for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are the fact that (A) Featured articles almost without exception are improved by their time on the main page, and (B) featured articles are (by definition) supposed to exemplify what makes wikipedia unique, and this means it is unprotected and editable by anyone. →Raul654 03:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I'll be a Monkey's Uncle, Mark, you are right: Thank you for the link above. Policy here does say: "When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." I don't agree with this policy, at all!! However, you may keep it --and proceed at your own risk. My personal pages (non-wiki, that is), are ALL protected, and VERY, very stable.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • (quoting Mark here) "When others have suggested protecting main page featured articles in the past (and it's been suggested quite often)..." Oh... It has been suggested "quite often," no less, eh..., as I suspected: I wonder why... Maybe because it has merit, eh? Therefore, I ask that you at least think about my suggestions, whether or not you vote in my favour, OK? Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the template, per the existing consensus to discontinue the practice to which it applies; the prudence of this decision should not be debated here. —
  Lifeisunfair 01:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Question, Life Is Unfair: (quoting you) "per the existing consensus to discontinue the practice..."Do you mean to say that you are voting "delete" simply because of other concensus -and not providing a reason? "the prudence of this decision should not be debated here." Why not? Is this not the proper page for that -and, if not, then what page? Please justify your reasoning to not debate it here.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you mean to say that you are voting 'delete' simply because of other concensus -and not providing a reason?"

No. That consensus is my reason. It was formally determined that pages are not to be protected simply because they're linked to from the main page, so this template serves no valid purpose. —

Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologize, Life; I had not seen the link to the policy before Mark showed it to me; still ,I disagree with this policy.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Why [shouldn't the prudence of this decision be debated here]? Is this not the proper page for that"

No, it isn't. This project page is used to discuss the proposed deletion of templates. It isn't used to establish or challenge Wikipedia policy. —

Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, I apologize: Since it was concensus from the past (and not just here), you're right: It should not be debated here (or at least to a large extent, but I want to make one more comment to Mark: It has OFTEN been discussed because it IS an idea with merit.)--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"-and, if not, then what page?"

How about

Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I've been around, but on this, I'm a "newbie." May I'll check it out; Thx 4 the heads up.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Articles listed on the main page generally improve. - SimonP 01:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment.You might be right, SimonP, and for that reason, I believe that the Schiavo article (which has had all the problems identified by the Fac editor finally removed) would have improved had it been featured, but it wasn't and an edit war resulted. If you are so sure of this logic, Simon, then ask Mark (AKA →Raul654), the Fac editor, to list this article as a Featured Article. My Logic: If it's true that "Articles listed on the main page generally improve," then I want to see this article improve.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because featured articles are to advertise Wikipedia's best articles. That these articles could still use some tweaks does not imply that they are not of high quality. - SimonP 19:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per article improvement and keeping faith in readers/editors. This has nothing to do with protecting from image vandalism on the Main Page.--Pharos 02:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pharos, I made a comment to Simon above, and, since you share his view on the influence to improve the article, without repeating them -for brevity, I direct these comments/question above to Simon also to you.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy — while established consensus states that pages should not be protected just because of being linked from the main page, I don't think anyone would have a problem with this being used for user pages linked from the main page. --Corvun 05:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Does "userfy" mean to place it in my user or talk pages? Also, whether or not the templae is there, does it make it work any different? Lastly, why would we expect user names to be on the main page?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer your first question - yes, he means put it on your user page. To answer your last question - user pages are occasionally linked from the main page on the weekends, when we run a featured picture (in place of Did You Know). The featured picture section lists the photographer, which means it often links to a user's page. →Raul654 06:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm... Cool. Thx; Y'all handle this and behave while I sleep a weekend away, OK? Take care.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Articles on the main page should not be protected, and for user pages linked from the main page for the featured picture, it's badly worded. Lupo 08:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When necessary, main page articles can be protected, and have been, using the standard
  WP:RfPP. Usually it's not necessary. This template is useless in both cases. Septentrionalis 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per discussion above use of this template violates current policy, so should not be used, so should be deleted according to
  deletion criteria #3. If the policy changes in the future, the template can be recreated easily enough. -- Rick Block (talk
  ) 14:39, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but. It should only be placed if the article is recieving vandalism. mrholybrain 12:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • We have {{vprotected}} to do that job. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Violates current policy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Franz Ferdinand

Don't get me wrong, I love this band. But do we need a giant 3x5 template for every band, esp. those with only one or two albums? Categories and links are more than sufficient. Gamaliel 18:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems to me that this information would be better conveyed by proper ordianryu links in the relevant articels. It would also be easier to edit that way. DES ^(talk) 14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed. No point in a template for a band with only two albums. Toveling 05:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is against established conventions. --Joy [shallot] 23:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The band doesn't have enough history or recorded material to justify a template box so soon. --Madchester 23:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why does it need to be deleted? I don't think that having a template box for this and other bands are a drain on bandwidth or anything. These would be good for any band, with or without a long and prolific career. --Nathew 07:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The problem with the band templates is that if we keep one, 1,000 non-notable bands with templates pop up and we're stuck with a mess. Titoxd 05:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IR

No benefits to having this be a template instead of a category, a lot of redlinks, only sets up precedent clutter people like Kant with a horde of boxes. Also, organized uselessly - it spans such a vast historical period (Thucydides to Woodrow Wilson), and yet is in alphabetical order. At once too broad and too idiosyncratic - no useful overall picture is given by reading this particular sequence of articles. Snowspinner 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Categorify, leaning more towards delete, as I'm not sure of the usefulness of such a category. Too broad, introduces clutter. android79 19:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. The vast historical period is purposeful: IR has been evolving for long, and many authors (specially English School ones) agree that the IR may be said to begin with Thucydides. The template´s purpose is to include 1) foundation political theorists used to label schools, such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Grotius, Kant and Marx; 2) actual IR theorists, be they realist (Mearsheimer, Waltz); liberal (Martin, Keohane); or constructivist (Wendt, Onuf); 3) men of action that influenced IR academic tought (Kissinger, Wilson, Lenin). In this sense, Template experts may want to create labels inside the template so as to make it in sections. As for red links, they are a mere invitation to create new articles that Wikipedia craves for - it lacks info on contemporary IR tought and in IR theory as a whole, a lack that only recently is being filled by the efforts mostly of Mintchocicecream. Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 04:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete This list cannot possibly be complete, and so the selection must be PoV. This is much better handled by a list of links in the main article, or a separate list article. Such a list could certianly include redlinks. It would also be much easier to expand without space issues. DES ^(talk) 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Replace by {{Otherarticles-alph}} which will Categorefy; all of which will make it much easier to revise, which this very badly needs. What is the imagined justification for including Hobbes??? or Marx, for that matter? Are the redlinks contributors to a particular textbook? Septentrionalis 18:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answering: English School IR theorists (such as Hedley Bull and Martin Wight) recongize three ample schools of tought in IR. They are labeled Hobbesian, Grotian and Kantian. As for Marx, he´s the inspirer of (tcham) Marxist tought in IR, including Fernando Henrique Cardoso´s, for instance. As for the redlinks: they are not simply contributors to a particular textbook, they are major 20th and 21th century IR thinkers and the main actors in the Realism x Liberalism x Constructivism debate. Doidimais Brasil 03:15, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AfricanAmericanL and Template:AfricanAmericanR

OB and redundant to Template:African American topics sidebar. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant. Johntex\^talk 19:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect L to {{African American topics sidebar}} ; keep R harmless, possibly useful variant. Septentrionalis 03:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Delete. Now superfluous, and parameter use documented. Septentrionalis 16:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I created these before I knew how to use parameters. Look at the embedded Template:African American topics sidebar, which now uses a parameter to align.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verifieduse

From February to May 2004, we had an experimental process for determining "fair use".

• Keep and rewrite. One problem that I keep running into is that many Wikipedia editors, both newbies and regular editors, use the {{
  albumcover}}, but the general fairuse template should be deleted because it is abuse way too often. If that doesn't happen, then this template, or something like it, is going to have to be used. BlankVerse ∅ 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I know about fair use. The problem with this template is that the whole process for which it was intended doesn't exist anymore, no images use it, and the large majority of the 60 or so that did use it until this morning should have used another one like e.g. {{
    fairuse}}, but then why keep it (and its category) at all? Lupo
    10:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A new system of marking "approved" usage should be created, but this one isn't it and should't be encouraged -- it is a vestige of an older, now defunct, system. The current text of
  Wikipedia:Fair use seems to imply that one should just add this template in exchange for a normal "fair use" template if you, the uploader, think it is "verified", but there is no verification system with the exception of knowing to use the template. It isn't being used in an effective manner, and the paltry number of things tagged with it (60 out of some 20,000 fair use images) makes that quite clear. --Fastfission 12:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I want to also note that we've recently been developing new templates for requesting verification of fair use status, disputing fair use status, and verifying fair use status, which I think will work a lot better. --Fastfission 19:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and create a new one when
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use creates a new system. JYolkowski // talk 22:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the procedure was never used anyway - this only confuses matters. Secretlondon 13:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New_page

Delete: A template for creating a skeleton article. While clearing out Category:stubs I encountered a number of articles which had been started off using this template. It's a nice idea in theory, but in practise it seems that people are not removing all the extra boilerplate text which means that someone else has to do it, as with the Padayachi article. This leaves articles with seemingly nonsensical content, a broken German interwiki link to "article names in German" and places it in Category:Stubs regardless of content length/depth. TheParanoidOne 22:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I don't think many new pages start out needing a bunch of headings, let alone subheadings. HollyAm 22:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Destroy with multiple ICBMs. If you can remember basic wiki-markup there's no reason to use this, and if you can't you probably won't have found out about these "template" things either. ~~ N (t/c) 22:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a nice idea in theory, either. Although, it makes it possible for me to mention
  Wikipedia:Use subheadings sparingly. :) --Joy [shallot] 23:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Abstain. It does look... fun. Doidimais Brasil 06:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. violet/riga (t) 10:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful. If people don't tidy up after using it, nag them.
  Kappa 10:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Most of the articles I saw were by anons, so nagging would be ... pointless. --TheParanoidOne 10:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Simplify. It used to default to
  Demarest Hall is a recent example of someone who has used the template properly, ie. removed all the unwanted stuff - but they have gone a bit wild on the categories!) -- RHaworth
  10:27:27, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't throwing all new pages into the Stubs category, whether stub or not, just duplicate Special:Newpages? HollyAm 18:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Articles scroll off
      Cryptic (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Also, add to the template at least one example of a Wikilink. -- RHaworth 19:09:13, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

• Demolish. BlankVerse ∅ 12:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This template loads up when you use the "Create page" form on
  Help:Starting a new page. But at the very least, I think that the raw text of the template should preserved so it can be used as a guide for newbies who are trying to start their first article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Ah, so that's where all these pages are coming from. I was wondering how these new users knew how to subst a template but not work out the rest. --TheParanoidOne 14:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd suggest reading
  Wikipedia:Guide to layout instead. Even if the template is kept, it shouldn't feed into Category:Stubs. Conscious 15:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Good for beginners. -- Thorpe ^talk 17:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Good for beginners new to discussions. (SEWilco 18:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Hurl into the Pits of Hades (um, that's a delete, if you haven't guessed). This explains why so many items are turning up in Category:stubs that 1) don't have a stub template on them; 2) are not stubs, and or 3) have various subsections headed "Subsection", "Item" or similar inanities - all of them interwikied with an article in the German Wikipedia called "new article". It greatly slows down the stub sorting process, since all of these new articles need serious tidying up before they can even be considered stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It assumes that every new article should be a seven section opus, when, especially for new editors, almost all new articles are only a couple of paragraphs. - SimonP 13:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SimonP, among others. — ceejayoz ^★ 16:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting, but it causes more problems than it solves. Flowerparty 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice idea, but it looks like more work to insert the template and clean up all the extra headers. Wiki headers are incredibly easy to create, so there is hardly any need for it. -- Sunny256|✎ 09:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template does far more harm than good. As noted above, its layout simply doesn't apply to most new articles. Users should be encouraged to learn the correct page creation process, rather than following a shortcut that leads to significant flaws and added work for others. —
  Lifeisunfair 19:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I have had to clean up several articles made with this template when doing new page patrol. Article structure is usually enforced by the new page patrollers anyway, and page layout can be learned by looking at other articles.
  NSR (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Kill it with fire (delete). Please, make things easier for the stub-sorters. I don't know how an article that is deep enough to have a level-3 heading (which is what this template assumes) could ever be a stub. Fix the problem at
  Help:Starting a new page, but get rid of it. Titoxd 20:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Template: Aircraft infobox alternate

Delete: This template was included in

Template:Medium_Neutral_HCA

Delete somebody's expriment gone wrong (at least according to its talk page). No page uses this template. --Valentinian 15:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I just speedy deleted it per author request on talk page. --
  _{tɔk tə mi} 07:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Template: VA_Highways

Delete: Redundant over Category:Virginia state highways. Also inaccurate. Virginia state highways are not, as the template suggests, divided into primary highways (1-99) and connector routes (110 up). Instead, they are divided into primary routes (1-599, with rare exceptions), secondary routes (600 up), and frontage roads (F-numbered); there is no separate class of routes called connector routes. Finally, the template is full of red links. Doctor Whom 01:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rearrange. Navigation boxes are always better for causual users than Categories. e.g. The red-links mean it lists all highways, not only those that just happen to have had an article written about them yet. And if you rearrange it to accurately reflect the differences between primar routes, secondary routes and frontage roads, this will be something else that a Category can't do. Finally, just look at how ugly the category is, especially the confusing way it tries to handle numerical ordering. Very off-putting for new users. — P Ingerson (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For primary routes alone, the template as thus rearranged would require sixty rows of mostly red links. I don't see how you could accommodate secondary routes, whose numbers go into five digits (at least they do in Fairfax County). If you added them on a case-by-case basis, that would defeat the purpose of the template. Doctor Whom 16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and then delete before someone gets the
  List of California State Routes) can be much getter than either categories or navigation boxes. BlankVerse ∅ 13:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete optionally first creating a list article. Large nav boxes such as this are usually a bad ides, partucularly when filled with red links. complete lists are the proper province of lists, rather than categories or navboxes. DES ^(talk) 14:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree that a category would be far more useful in this instance. - SimonP 15:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categorize and/or list-of is better. Wins prize for ugliest template. User:Stbalbach:Stbalbach 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then delete. Virginia State Highways are supposed to be called "Virginia State Highway x" anyway, and it would take too long to change. A cat and a list would be much better for this, and when a VA state hwy WP is created, a nightmare will occur.--Rschen7754 20:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is one for Rhode Island and West Virginia too. The Interstate one and the US highway one is actually practical because it lists only the major highways. --Rschen7754 20:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is to be listified, categorified, and then deleted. -Splash^talk 02:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Listing takes up to much space. The Template is patterned after the US Highway template which works well. The template is easier to navagate. --71Demon 02:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) The debate has already concluded. --Rschen7754 03:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep, useful template for a proven encyclopedic topic.Gateman1997 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Vote has concluded already. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RitaWarning

Delete: Redundant, now that someone created the more flexible

(I can not edit the template itself to mark it for deletion, as it is protected.)

I've added {{

HurricaneWarning}} should go too but I won't nominate it right now. JYolkowski // talk 23:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Someone who knows the deal (i.e. not me) needs to change the articles over to the new template. Those pages are likely to be high visibility at the moment and the TfD tag is not the most pleasant thing in the world. -Splash^talk 23:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just swapped out all the references in articles. --Zetawoof 00:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, as it has now been superceded by {{
  HurricaneWarning}}. Titoxd 01:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --
  Hottentot
• Delete. It's probably, um, ultimately my fault this template existed at all. ;) IceKarmaॐ 04:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. No it isn't. I'm the one who made it without knowledge of your deeds or existence. I cheerfully acknowledge the later template as superior, can this be speedied with the request of the sole author? --Kizor 08:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. -Splash^talk 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Mysidia (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. *drew 10:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 2005-09-21 09:24 to 2005-09-21 22:20 UTC: 0.539 days
Removed from TfD: 2005-09-22 09:14 UTC: 0.993 days —IceKarmaॐ 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yello

Delete: Created as a test template by an anon IP and contains no useful content. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied by me. --
  nixie 06:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Period of comment: 2005-09-14 11:57 to 2005-09-14 16:41 UTC: 0.197 days
Removed from TfD: 2005-09-22 09:17 UTC: 7.9 days —IceKarmaॐ 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SouthAfricaImages

Delete: Is not even used in the

Template:vfdclosed

Never used by anyone but me, made obsolete by the AFD reform. - Sikon 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am also wondering if anybody uses {{
  oldvfd}}? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I haven't seen it used recently, but it is still widely linked to in talk: pages, which would take an awful lot of subst:ing. Not impossible though. -Splash^talk 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only time I used {{
    oldafd}}. Titoxd 19:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm not sure if you're talking about redirecting {{vfdclosed}} or {{oldvfd}}, but if you mean the latter, please don't. The vast majority of pages at
      Cryptic (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Seconded. {{
        oldvfdfull
        }} must keep pointing to the old Votes for deletion subpages, unless someone goes and subst: both in all places they are used.
        • Hmm, I hadn't thought of that, since I usually substed it whenever I used it. So, I've changed my vote to delete, seeing it has been substed. Titoxd 22:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• subst: and delete, since the nominator doesn't want it anymore. Be sure not to just delete it, or the pages it appears on will suddenly no longer have their vfd/afd link. -Splash^talk 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substed. - Sikon 01:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to take any action on the other templates discussed here because 1)it seems that none is wanted and 2)it seems that if any is wanted, it needs a seperate TfD. -Splash^talk 13:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FR-location

Context should be provided as prose within an article's lead section, not as a generic template tacked onto the top. Worse, in several articles on my watchlist, prose leads have been replaced by this. I'm afraid to look at the other articles where it now appears. —

Well, maybe should people agree on each others. Look here:

This article is about Faerûn, a fictional continent, the primary setting of Forgotten Realms

As for the “worse, prose leads have been replaced”, you may be interested into this, too:

Removed redundant header

I'm a bit fed up with all of these. Lot of critics, few additions. As we say in computing: “Where is your patch?” Reply to David Latapie 13:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I prefer the template. I prefered the original bolded statement, but there does not seem to be support for that. Because someone went through and awkwardly rewrote lead paragraphs, I tried a relatively generic statement on top: "X" is a "(city, village, castle, region, character, etc.)" in the Forgotten Realms setting of Dungeons & Dragons. When the new italicized template is added (and I'm not saying the phrasology can't use some work) I went back and removed the header that I added to the articles that I had written. My main reference was a number of Harry Potter articles that systematically state the fictional setting and type in a seperate sentence before the Content box. That is my preference. I wouldn't mind seeing the reference to Toril go, and add a reference to D&D in the opening sentence. --RYard 16:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on Baldur's Gate discussion page, I'm OK for the Toril reference too, and everyone seems to agree on that. To change the content of the template is very easy: just go to the templates's page and change the text.

On the other hand, I consider that repetitive information should be templated, this is smaller, more elegant (yes, this is subjective) and, most importantly, add consistency to articles. The reason why they are scarcely used seems, IMHO, to be that people don't know how to create template — actually, it is "disarmingly" simple, I think that is the main reason. Templating is for power users, and power users - myself included - are not accustomed to such a trivial way to do it. Reply to David Latapie 16:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As I have mentioned elsewhere, standard Wikipedia practice, and in my opinion the best method, is to clearly note a topic's fictional nature within the prose of the introduction. - SimonP 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But as we discussed, it's not standard practice. Compare, say,
    Ered Lithui with Mordor. Granted, there's no template, but there's no standard either. Still, I don't believe there is a great need for a template, just consistency. --RYard 19:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I don't think we should be enforcing editorial content with templates; they're more brittle, harder to change, and can "flatten" the editorial feel of the article. Consistency is good, but there are always exceptions. The solution is aggressive editing, not templating. Therefore, my opinion is to delete. Nandesuka 15:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pardon me, but for me, aggressive editing is like polling in computing, a quick-and-dirty (and no so quick in the long run, especially with more than 140 articles) solution. Reply to David Latapie

• Delete. This information should be at the beginning of the article, and not in italics. -- Reinyday, 20:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  WP:FICT for more details. 205.210.232.62 20:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The above comment was mine, it seems I was loggged out without realizing it. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and reverse the many, many removals of clear, standardized information in the introductions of the articles. Quite apart from anything else, this template looks very ugly. I tried very hard to standardize these FR introductions as much as possible when creating them (see the gods articles), and so don't see any practical need to make them [sic] "neater". -Erolos 23:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about a template is that it is very easy to change it <wikipedia>If you don't like it, edit it.</wikipedia>. At least, it has the merit to exists.213.157.237.18

• Delete. Articles about fictional subjects should make their fictional context clear as is appropriate to that particular topic, and the context shouldn't need to be bolded or italicized. Does Sherlock Holmes open with a boldfaced statement reminding the reader that he's not a real person? -Sean Curtin 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen too much {{context}} flags. I stopped counting and I can assure you it is very frustrating to see people just context-ing all your work. Really. That's why I created the template, because of all these context-ing. Now, if people could stop context-ing, I would be very happy (and could focus on the much more useful

FR's template infobox.213.157.237.18

Template:WashDCInfoBox

Currently orphaned, redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, but looks like it was already "subst"ed onto Washington, D.C.. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JapanCopyright

Similar to

Keep if modifications can be suggested I'd totally forgotten about this template, that's why it was only on two images (so far). Any suggestions as to modifying this template? I think it would be quite useful, especially given the growing number of Japan pop culture-related items being added to Wikipedia. Cjmarsicano 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our general direction for fair use tags is to get away from blanket tags to ones that explicitly describe what category of image it is and where fair use applies (see

WP:WPFU for more information). If it described something specific (say, promotional Japanese anime posters or official photographs of Japanese politicians or something like that) then it might be useful. Alternately it might be useful if it were an additive tag that would be used in addition to a fair use tag, and just stated that the image is believed to fall under one of the exceptions in Japan's copyright act. Note that I still prefer deletion to either of the two options I listed, though. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. US copyright law is the one that really matters, and for fair use, we want to use the topic-specific ones if at all possible. --Carnildo 22:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Freenet

Unused, nonsensical. Alas, I couldn't find a CSD case to fit it. —

• Delete linkspam. Titoxd 19:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not nonsense or spam - it's used for links into
  Freenet (which runs as a proxy on localhost:8888). But as it's been decided not to have Freenet links, delete. ~~ N (t/c) 22:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editwar

Delete: Redundant with Template: Disputed. The way it approaches the issue makes the tagged page look more like a web forum than an encyclopedia. -- Norvy (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• And a red divbox doesn't help much at all. Delete. Titoxd 19:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful for marking contentious pages and just for kicks.
  T | @ | C 20:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As Norvy notes, it is redundant with other disclaimers, such as
  Template:Accuracy. Unlike these warnings, it provides no useful or relevant information to the average reader. While J. Hypothetical Reader should be warned if an article is biased or inaccurate, I do not think it is necessary to inform him of the existence of an edit war if that edit war has not affected the article's accuracy or neutrality. (I would say "confine to talk pages", but there'd be no point to that either: we already have Template:Controversial.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons cited above. —
  Lifeisunfair 21:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for the reasons cited above. Scary and unhelpful. And the image covers the start of the text unless the page is very wide indeed. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant, uninformative, and possibly inflammatory depending on how it's applied. -Sean Curtin 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant, polarising, and shouldn't be on an article page in the first place. If there's a content dispute, take it to the Talk page, and if it degenerates into an edit war, go ask an admin for help instead of slapping a template on it (in other words, resolve the war instead of declaring it). --IByte 22:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fair dealing

Doesn't mention anything about U.S. copyright laws, so it's not a valid image copyright tag. Furthermore, fair dealing in Canada only applies to research, private study, criticism, review, and news reporting and various noncommercial purposes, and it doesn't look like most of the images so tagged would apply. It might potentially be useful as an additive tag, but since it's not used that widely, contains a redlinked category and isn't documented anywhere I would say delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. IceKarmaॐ 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a world outside the US, and images come from other countries too. Ambi 14:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from Canada myself. However, what matters for the purposes of Wikipedia are U.S. copyright laws because that's where the servers are located, and this tag has nothing to say about those. JYolkowski // talk 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sesamestreetscreencapture

Delete: Overly precise, contains a badly-named and redlinked category, poor wording compared to

• Delete as per nom. IceKarmaॐ 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ∞Who?¿? 04:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon_Clarke_Tube_Map

Delete: Now orphaned template was exclusively used for the now deleted and replaced Image:London underground zone 1 small.png. The template now serves no purpose. I suggest deleting talk page as well. —Gabbe 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. IceKarmaॐ 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Missed most of [the time] this [was up for] discussion, or I'd have said Speedy Delete earlier (as author and only contributor to both the template and its talk page) - template was originally applied to a number of images which appeared to be derived from Simon Clarke's material, all of which have now been redrawn from free data. Whether Simon might have been persuaded to adjust his terms for certain specific derived works on wikipedia is now academic. --Stoive 22:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Font sample

'Strong Delete': The template is actually much more confusing than helping. It only works if users have the proper font installed (and the proper browser settings), and images work a lot better to illustrating them. Consider the entries

• Delete. Um, don't see why this could be considered useful in any way. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Speechless. — mendel ☎ 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly useless. I have a wide variety of fonts installed, yet all I see for any of the above samples is boring old Courier. IceKarmaॐ 19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Proved useless beyond any reasonable doubt. Titoxd 23:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have more font than most and I can't see anything. Anonymous user.
• Delete. Agree completely with Drini's concerns. Jgm 11:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too much potential to mislead. Susvolans ⇔ 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete. I only agree to the deletion of this template if and only if all the articles that use it have replacement images. Nohat 16:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of doing this. -- Thorpe ^talk 21:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Even without all the replacement images in place, I am in favor of deleting this template. For most users, it's worse than unhelpful - it's actively misleading. --Bob Schaefer 04:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ditto what others said. It's confusing. Images are more effective. --Lendorien 15:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for time being. I agree with Nohat – the template should only be removed once sample images of the fonts that use it have been created. I created this template originally because many font pages had their own 'font sample' section, which I just regularised with a template. I believe deleting this will only cause the font articles to start using {{Lipsum}} directly again. Nicholas 23:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to sound thick, but what is the point in keeping this template when it won't show the typical visitor what the font looks like? It seems unreasonable to expect users to purchase a font in order to read the Wikipedia article about that font. I agree that font sample images would be great, but the current template makes it look like we have a serious misunderstanding of how fonts work on the Web. (In the meantime we could replace this template with one that explains that we don't have a sample, and optionally contains an external link to a sample on the font vendor's website.) — mendel ☎ 00:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• """Delete, of course. It does not make sense as it confuses readers without these fonts installed. I am working in creating sample font images for all typography articles. Started today. First one done is media:Garamond pro roman.png ≈ jossi ≈ 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but modify. I aggree with Nicholas, but a warning like on Futura_(typeface) is most certianly in order. When I've had the fonts installed (as well as a properly configured Firefox and freetype) the template displays the font fine. Use of this template should also be suplemented by images. Jonathan Kollasch, Thu Sep 29 21:29 UTC 2005.

Template:Fairuse-ESA

Despite its name, it didn't say anything about fair use at all (until I added the bit at the end about how the image may or may not be usable in Wikipedia); rather, it appears to be a noncommercial-use-only tag, which is depreciated. Since there's only one use, let's delete it before it gets used any more. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. IceKarmaॐ 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP IT! It's a very helpful and necessary feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.88.184 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep. If deleted, the users who upload these images will just mark them "fairuse" with or without reason. Better have then categorized to check for fairuse than have them all lumped under one label. I know, I know... But still keep. --Irpen 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this doesn't do the job, as described by the nominator, and considering that with the anon discounted, we have two-thirds I shall delete. Normally, I'd like a little more discussion but that can be hard to come by on TfD, and we don't demand unanimity to delete which is what I would otherwise be insisting on. -Splash^talk 02:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reuters

Blanked by creator, and subsequently edited to point to

• Delete as per nom. IceKarmaॐ 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ∞Who?¿? 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AssociatedPress

Very misleading; Associated Press photos are probably not good fair use candidates because we could be construed as competing with them. Not used too much either. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]