Contents

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

Yet another obnoxious cleanup template. --W(t) 21:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

• Comment: Oh my god. This has to be the funniest template I have ever seen. --Hottentot
• Delete as per Weyes, and especially because it's not funny. Joe D (t) 21:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hilarious, but trollfood. Delete this please. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, if such an option exists for templates. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:29, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Speedy ahh I'm blind, no color that bright should even exist, oh and BJAODN. ;-) <>Who?¿? 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, oh, that's just lovely. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2

03:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy BJAODN. As a NZer, I'm impressed the fact that it's in the Australian colours, too :) Grutness...wha? 05:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE. Maybe next time he/she should create a category (joking). --minghong 28 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)
• Delete. Stupid and useless template. Made as a joke and probably with the intention of landing it on BJAODN, so let's not put it there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 07:34 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and it was not funny enough for BJAODN anyway. - Sikon 28 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)
• Speedied as nonsense. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 08:00 (UTC)

Template:Weirdness[edit]

Just because the person listing an article for deletion thinks it's weird doesn't make it unencyclopedic. "Weird" and "strange" are going to appear insulting to newbies. "It is not necessarily nonsense" seems unnecessary. Weirdness should not be a criteria for speedy deletion. Angela. 04:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, weird but not nonsense is good. --W(t) 11:03, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly useless. -- Ec5618 15:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Weird" and "strange" should also not be on CSD because they are more subjective. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• {{db}}: this template is a candidate for speedy deletion because it does not match Wikipedia CSD Policy. BlankVerse ∅ 16:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strange and weird articles go to either Wikipedia:Unusual articlesorWikipedia:Cleanup; unencyclopedic articles go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Neither of them are causes for a speedy deletion. --cesarb 19:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or occasionally get BJAODN'd. BlankVerse ∅ 06:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --minghong 00:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bxscience[edit]

Template which was created for use on one article and can only ever be used on one article. I have since removed it and put the template code directly in the article. CryptoDerk 03:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. one-article-only template --MarSch 16:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• subst: and then delete. BlankVerse ∅ 16:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... defintely want to avoid such specialized templates. Courtland 16:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Delete, there's no point of having it if it only applies to one article. Is there no general template for this? -Frazzydee|✍ 02:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Special[edit]

Only used in one place, and redundant with Template:Specialpageslist. Radiant_* 10:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Obsolete to Template:Specialpageslist (although I would not mind if we use a redirect instead). The only places it is currently used is on user pages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objections to it being userfied instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Templates for personal use don't need to be standardized and thus multiple version should be allowed to exist. --MarSch 16:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. In keeping with my views expressed elsewhere, this template really needs to be in User space.--MarSch 15:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as it stays in the User namespace, which I take to be the intention. Courtland 16:58, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Do you mean userfy, then? It isn't presently in the user namespace. Radiant_* 09:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Pcb21| Pete 07:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olditalic[edit]

Yesterday's entry seems to be gone away somewhat. This template was only for the article Old Italic alphabet, to which I merged the template. --Puzzlet Chung 05:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unused --MarSch 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obsolete SI prefixes[edit]

Converted to article, at Obsolete SI prefixes. Template now obsolete. Radiant_* 11:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (Speedy candidate in talk proposal) --MarSch 15:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Obsolete. — Xiong熊talk* 14:21, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is also now obsolete, and it like the template was incorrectly named in the first place. Gene Nygaard 03:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Gene. There is no such thing as an obsolete SI prefix - these prefixes were in use before the SI system was established in the 1960s and have nothing to do with the SI system. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ha, Template:Hc-list, Template:Hc-ref and Template:Hac[edit]

Delete as a matter of cleanup. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Half-decent articles. (The idea behind this is to have a system similar to WP:FAC, to determine when an article is 'half-decent' and label it as such. This system has not been advertised, discussed or even used, and frankly I fail to see the point. Is it by itself half-decent? I don't think we should bother archiving this since it isn't even a failed proposal.) Radiant_* 09:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• delete. I guess they won't be needed. --MarSch 12:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The VfD nomination is inappropriate. VfD does not concern itself with Wikipedia-namespace pages. — Xiong熊talk* 14:27, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. Read VFD policy. Radiant_* 15:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cute idea, but it hasn't been adopted, and it really looks like a bit of a joke.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USculture[edit]

Intended as a substitute for Category:American culture, but the latter contains far too many topics to conveniently list them in a template. Besides, there's no meaningful ordering to them. Radiant_* 12:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - "No meaningful order"? Apparently theres "no meaningful order" to the TFD process either. Your comment is disjointed - you use "them" in consecutive sentences to refer to two different templates. You seemed to be on the verge of explaining the reason for the split, but you cut yourself off -inserting a coarse value judgement about its content. -SV|t
  • Huh? 'Them' refers to 'far too many topics' in both cases. Surely TFD has better things to do than argue over grammar? Radiant_* 06:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -SV|t 19:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The template has a brief yet incredibly random selection of topics. Expand or delete. -Sean Curtin 22:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Star stub[edit]

I know what you're thinking, but no - this isn't a stub template. When WP:WSS was looking for undiscovered stub templates a few weeks ago, we discovered {{star stub}}, a stubby infobox used by the Astronomical WikiProject. WP:WSS had star-stub (for articles on stars), and thought the names were too easily confused. With the great cooperation of WikiProject Astronomical objects, {{Star stub}} has become {{Starbox short}} (to which Star stub currently redirects). It's also been deprecated - all the articles which used it have had the new template name put on them. To remove potential confusion, then, Star stub should now be deleted. Grutness...wha? 12:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a few people now think "stub" is a general term for any template :| Joe D (t) 12:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WPAO called this one star stub because it was a shorter version of their normal star template. Grutness...wha?

• Delete. An easy decision. A confusingly named, and now unused template. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to astronomy stub template or whatever the most suitable is. Dunc|☺ 13:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood what this template is ... (ie. not a stub template). --TheParanoidOne 19:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Less confusion = more usability. Feco 19:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferably Delete, or, failing that, redirectto{{star-stub}}. -- grm_wnr Esc 03:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't make an easy one look confusing. Gene Nygaard 03:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: no longer necessary and likely to cause unwanted confusion. --Phil | Talk 10:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tu-civ-trans[edit]

An aircraft template, now against WikiProject aircraft standards. Not used in any articles. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:06, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete. unused [-MarSch]^[1]

Template:POS[edit]

A rediculous template, that not only called an article a 'Piece of shit' but also refered to the user page of User:SPUI. And it included the template for speedy deletion, which is rediculous in any case (I removed it). - Ec5618 17:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• While it refered to the user page of User:SPUI, it wasn't created by him; so, he quickly slapped a speedy deletion tag to it. And I agree with him that it should be speedy deleted. --cesarb 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted. Pcb21| Pete 17:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mentitle[edit]

A joke template that is only on two user pages. It should be Subst:'d, BJAODN'd, and deleted. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a BJAODN page that is just joke templates: Transcluded nonsense and other multisyllabic templates. BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• BJAODN, and delete (and userfy?). BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, definetly. One of the better one, I'd say :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. But feel free to post it on BJAODN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userify. It's a joke template used only in user space, given the freedom usually given to user space creations, I think this should get a pass too. Not really harming anything. Dragons flight 05:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not even "used" on User pages, only linked to (so it doesn't even need to be "Subst:'d". Besides, if it is a User-only template, it is better to have it as a User subpage than as an article in the Template namespace. BlankVerse ∅ 14:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Lysy 06:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete if you feel the need~to; BJaODN - if someone finds it funny... Halibutt 12:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- This might have been speedied, due to its offensive content and obvious lack of utility. — Xiong熊talk* 22:14, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this pollution of the template namespace.--MarSch 16:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJODN, definately. Thryduulf 15:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there ought to be a way to speedy this nonsense. I don't personally feel that it's BJAODN-worthy. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_U.S._school and Template:Infobox_school[edit]

While templates for schools are a good idea, these particular two aren't actually in use, and are very different in design from the one described and used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Thus, for consistency's sake, removing and redirecting them seems best. Radiant_* 11:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Oops, I forgot about them after I mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools that they were unused. [2]. But I guess that ten days didn't make a whole lot of difference. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused, unwanted, uneeded, unhelpful. BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep please. I've only started to learn the use of templates, and I'll edit them and make use of them shortly. I don't think anyone actually designed a template to match the one at WikiProject Schools, they're actually just copy/pasting in the example table. I think a template may be more useful, but need a bit more time to get familiar with them. Leaving these for me to modify won't hurt anything if they're slated for deletion anyway. Otherwise I'll have to recreate them from scratch, and I don't think that'll be as easy as editing an existing work. Thanks. --Unfocused 19:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe there's Template:School. Anyway, if you want to work with this template, would you mind if we userfied it for now? Radiant_* 07:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I've decided to use my time elsewhere. I think these should be pointed out to the WikiProject Schools members before deletion to see if they have an interest, since, as I mentioned, it appears they're using a copy & paste rather than an actual template. Changed vote to "weak keep". Will change to delete if the WikiProject is aware but not interested. BTW, NOOB??? Care to expand? --Unfocused 21:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • (for the record, the WikiProject is aware and not interested (see its talk page) so I'm counting your vote as 'delete'). Radiant_* 09:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NOOB -- These templates are very nice-looking, and a lot of hard work has obviously gone into them. It is immaterial whether they are in use yet. Unless the relevant WikiProject expresses a strong consensus against them, this nomination is inappropriate. — Xiong熊talk* 22:19, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • As has been stated before, templates are the business of TFD. And as has been stated twice in this nomination and discussion, WikiProject:Schools uses another template. Radiant_* 07:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tu-civ-trans-text[edit]

No longer used in any articles; was originally nested in template:Tu-civ-trans, also up for deletion. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Template:President[edit]

This template was created almost a year ago as a blank page/template. Has remained a blank page/template ever since. One talk page comment saying someone had trouble getting it to work. Template has never been used in a year of existance. Was going to speedy it but figured it'd be better to bring it here. Hedley 23:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this sandbox stuff. --MarSch 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that we have Infobox President, but it should be noted that this template was not created as a blank template. This was the original template, but the editor seems to have given up after "having trouble making [it] work". -Frazzydee|✍ 04:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and thank the author for their attempt to make a useful template. (No it was'nt me or anyone I know :) ). <>Who?¿? 05:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:ScroogeUniverse[edit]

Another huge template. This one is three or four times larger than many of the articles it is on. - SimonP 02:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Yikes. Could it be trimmed (aggressively!) to encompass the major characters, and include a reference to some sort of family tree article (perhaps a filled-out Scrooge McDuck universe page?) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Listify. A cat would be nice for the major characters (but Category:Donald Duck already exists), but this template contains far too many minor ones. Radiant_* 08:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• As huge as the rail navigation boxes below, but without duplicate links. Convert to lists and categories or (2nd choice) rewrite as a summary navigation box that is much, much smaller. BlankVerse ∅ 14:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Categorify, listify, shrink -- Agree with BlankVerse. — Xiong熊talk* 17:04, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Comment -- To me, it seems like most of the characters in that ginormous box should be condensed into a few articles of minor characters, according to WP:FICT -- Majromax 00:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do whatever it takes to shrink this. Yeek. Bryan 05:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As an amateur, I'd find this information useful if I needed to trace the McDuck universe, but I can see why, if it's larger than the article, some people find it confusing. Could it be made a 'Universe Headlines' or 'Universe keywords' page, as a centre point to and from which readers could navigate if they wished ? --Simon Cursitor 11:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite As everyone has said above, it is a very large template. However, I think it is better if it is rewritten into categories, instead of having so many characters on the one page. (I would like to refer to the Chronicles of Narnia template(s) as an example.) --JB Adder | Talk 02:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Incorrect[edit]

Created by an anonymous user, I assume as a prank. Obviously, placing this template on an article does nothing at all. — Asbestos | Talk 01:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Quickly, if not speedily. -- Ec5618 10:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It is no more daft than some of the other templates we have. But of course, it should be deleted. Pcb21| Pete 11:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think that it is a prank. I think that it is just one more well-meaning person creating yet another cleanup/warning template that is nothing more than m:Instruction creep. I hadn't looked at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup in quite awhile, and just recently noticed that there are several new templates on that page that I also think fit into the same instruction creep category. My personal opinion that most could be replaced with a {{cleanup-because}} template. On the other hand, without an active Template WikiProject similar to the Stub-sorting WikiProject, the folks here at TFD will just be doing more reactive mop duty. BlankVerse ∅ 17:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Duplicates the function of the "Edit this page" link. — Xiong熊talk* 17:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete If an article contains incorrect data, change it! Simple as that! If you think it contains incorrect information, put it up for peer review! You don't need to put in a message saying it's wrong. The writer of this template, it seems to me, didn't want to go to the trouble of editing Wikipedia. --JB Adder | Talk 02:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AmE and Template:BrE[edit]

"This page is in American English" and "This page is in British English". Not in use, and both kinds of English are acceptable by the Manual of Style so I fail to see the point. Radiant_* 10:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Bit of a toss up, really... either delete or create Templates: IrishE, SAfricanE, AussieE, NZE, CanadE, and GibberishE. Eeeny, meeny... oh just delete it. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is tempting to try to set in stone the English usage that is used for a particular article, if only to try to prevent the edit wars that can occasionally flair up over the issue. On the other hand, I think that there are already enough guidelines on English usage in the Wikipedia:Manual of style, so this is only an issue with problem editors who will ignore these templates anyway. BlankVerse ∅ 12:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's not deleted, please revert to this version which makes it clear the template is only proposed. Angela. 13:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Grutness. Jacob 17:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/monitor[edit]

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/cabinet[edit]

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/arcade system[edit]

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:stylehowto[edit]

I'm splitting up the style and how-to categories, per WP:CFD. Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory is getting split up, too, and there are more comprehensive navigational templates in use to unify these pages. (For instance, Template:Style.) At the end of this process (which will take several days), this template will no longer be needed. -- Beland 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Sounds like a good idea, if the template's really big. --JB Adder | Talk 03:00, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:LanguageDispute[edit]

"According to some people there is an inherent neutrality issue in the use of a particular language... This may itself have been challenged by other people who assert that the language choice does not affect the neutrality of the article and that therefore this warning should not apply" Er, what? Apart from the fact that this isn't in use and has been reworded to the point of meaninglessness, I fail to see what this template is trying to accomplish. Radiant_* 11:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused, ugly, verbose, poorly written, POV, etc. BlankVerse ∅ 12:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ouch. That hurts to read. Is this a template designed to make it easy to find Gdansk/Danzig pages? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. generalization of deleted Template:Hawaiian. --MarSch 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bureaucruft. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unlike {{NPOV}}, {{TotallyDisputed}}, etc., a language dispute isn't so big of a problem that people need to be warned about it before they start reading. Additionally, AFAIK this problem isn't that common, so simply talking about it on the discussion page should be fine. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Acc[edit]

template to include a picture. Inappropriate template use. --MarSch 12:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's useful, which is the point of templates. --SPUI (talk) 12:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - stomp out laziness. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
• Delete. If there was a possibility that the handicapped image being used in the template might be changed or improved, I would say this template was worthwhile, but since that is not the case, delete. BlankVerse ∅ 16:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate use of a template. What is wrong with just writing/copying "[[Image:Accessible.png]]"? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, these type of things make it very confusing when people try to edit articles, because they have to go back to the template or the main page to see what it actually does. This degree of laziness is too much- even by my standards ;) -Frazzydee|✍ 17:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pnpov[edit]

Alternative {{pov}}. Don't know what pn is supposed to mean. Little used.--MarSch 12:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - yet another "miniature" version of a template. So many of these have been deleted recently. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
• Delete & sigh...do we have to do this again? -Frazzydee|✍ 18:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Amazing how many templates are around because some people are just too lazy to do anything about it (this is the second so far I've encountered). --JB Adder | Talk 02:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses custom[edit]

Duplicate of {{Otheruses2}} that nobody uses. Joe D (t) 15:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete. --MarSch 15:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Trödel|talk 02:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the mentioned template. violet/riga (t) 19:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:No negative headings[edit]

I don't know why this was a template in the first place; the content has been merged into Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Beland 13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unused --MarSch 14:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, you may not use it, but I do, and with the "Subst:". You can point people at a policy page till you turn blue, quickly summarizing and pointing to the page is much more effective. Hyacinth 22:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do we need to subst this kind of message in the template namespace? Won't that work if you just make a user subpage?--Sketchee 22:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. BlankVerse ∅ 14:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy- these kind of personal messages belong in the user namespace. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Question: What does "userfy" mean? Hyacinth 07:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • See #Examples of votes. --W(t) 07:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
    • What does that mean? How is something a template if it is not in the template space? Hyacinth 02:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The template transclude syntax works for all namespaces not just the template namespace, so syntax like {{user:hyacinth/blarg}} treats the named page just like a template meaning any user can have "private" templates as subpages off their user page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Headingstalk[edit]

I don't know why this was a template in the first place; the content has been merged into Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Beland 13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unused --MarSch 14:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. I know that is template, and probably Template:No negative headings was being used as boilderplate text for adding comments to User Talk pages. It was probably always substituted, so that is the reason there are pages listed in "What links here". User:Hyacinth, who created this template is currently not as active on the Wikipedia, but I left a note on his User Talk page. BlankVerse ∅ 16:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BlankVerse is correct. Hyacinth 22:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy then, as it seems not heavily in use other than by Hyacinth. Radiant_* 07:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Foo-wikify[edit]

This includes Template:Biology-wikify, Template:Geo-wikify, Template:History-wikify, Template:Music-wikify, Template:Office-wikify, Template:Org-wikify, Template:People-wikify, Template:Pol-wikify, Template:Pop-wikify, Template:Sports-wikify, and any other Foo-wikify template that I might have missed.

Template:Education-wikify has already been deleted and Template:Comp-wikify was supposed to be deleted but hasn't been. Let's get rid of all the other Foo-wikify templates as well. If someone from an active WikiProject will volunteer to actively support a matching topic wikify template, I will delete that template from this list. BlankVerse ∅ 06:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete-wikify. m:Instruction creep. BlankVerse ∅ 06:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unlike stub-expansion, 99% of wikification doesn't require knowledge of the subject. --W(t) 06:38, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Keep The categories that this template creates help people edit articles that need to me wikified. User:Shanedidona
• Wouldn't it be usefull to have a wikify template for each stub template? Wikifying may require less or even no knowledge, but separate templates offer editors the choice of what kind of articles to wikify. I guess this is part of a bigger problem though. Basically I think the problem is that stub and wikify templates are not integrated with categories. I am reserving my judgement. --MarSch 13:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Wouldn't it be usefull to have a wikify template for each stub template?" No, because wikification can be done by pretty much any editor who's even slightly familiar with WP, whereas unstubbing requires definite knowledge of the subject at hand. There will likely never be as many articles marked with Template:Wikify as there are in any moderately populous stub category. Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since wikifying implies actuially reading the article, I think it would be good to be able to choose articles that you find interesting. --MarSch 16:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I really don't see how subject-specific wikification templates would help anybody in any way. I've wikified many articles of varying length and content, and it would not have helped me improve it if I knew what the article was about beforehand. Unwikified articles do not imply that they are short/lacking. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You might have chosen different articles to wikify. --MarSch 14:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikifying is essentially making an article pretty, and I can do that regardless of its category. Joyous 19:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not completely useless, but not worthwhile enough to merit the many hours of work it would take to categorize all the deadend pages. - SimonP 21:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikify is sufficient Gbeeker 12:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Replace all with {{wikify}} and delete. Kelly Martin 14:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless specific Wikiprojects come forward with specific template requests. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, somebody's forgotten that cleanup templates are a means to an end, not an end in itself. Joe D (t) 16:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this may not be such a bad idea. Articles need to be sorted into categories anyway. I'm not well versed in cleanup, but I imagine that there is a big cleanup-category with subcategories wikify, stub and such. If not maybe there should be. But each stub needs also to be in its subject's category cleanup-subcategory. These templates would make it possible to have wikify also in a specific cleanup-category and not only the general. Then people can decide for themselves whether they want to do some random cleanup or subject specific. We shouldn't be deleting these templates but instead actively get some projects interested. This might be part of a remedy to prevent people from going straight to vfd, because they've lost faith in the cleanup process and would at the least improve the efficiency of cleanup. --MarSch 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary specialization and instruction creep. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with MarSch - we have other templates that have less use than these do. Trödel|talk 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses4[edit]

Though the code is slightly different, as far as I can tell this does exactly the same thing as {{Dablink}}, except that the creator of dablink bothered to list it on WP:TM, so that one actually gets used. Joe D (t) 23:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think that they duplicate each other completely. As far as I can tell, {{dablink}} would be used for saying "This article is about XYZ, for the ABC, see [[This article]]". {{otheruses4}} would be used for saying something like "This article is about XYZ, for other uses, see [[This disambiguation page]]"

Since it's not an exact duplicate, and there might be reason for distinguishing between the two in the future (i.e. if something needs to be changed on one), I don't feel comfortable deleting this since there are no votes. This was restored from the "ready to delete" section. -Frazzydee|✍ 12:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Used on 1 article and badly named. --MarSch 14:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Frazzydee's keeping the discussion open, but I've moved it to the top to give it some more attention. Oh, and delete as redundant. Radiant_* 09:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• delete I could have sworn I voted delete on this one already. Trödel|talk 19:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Noaccess[edit]

This is unused and redundant with Template:Technical. -- Beland 06:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete--MarSch 13:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the mentioned template. violet/riga (t) 19:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Access[edit]

This is apparently unused and I'm not sure it's very nice for transclusion. Generic examples of suggested formats would belong on a WikiProject page instead, and this sort of thing should be proposed as part of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Mathematics. Also redundant with Template:Technical. -- Beland 06:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete. --MarSch 13:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If there are 'prerequisites' that you must have to understand an article, why not just link to them as they come along? Whoever doesn't know them will click on the links. It also don't see why there would be exactly 8 articles. Is that just an arbitrary number, or is there a reason? -Frazzydee|✍ 19:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:fne[edit]

"Formula needs explanation." Not a bad idea, but it seems to be unused. Perhaps this is because it is too specific. Template:Technical is more general and more popular. -- Beland 06:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete. unused. talk pages also offer a better chance of explaining what is unclear in a specific formula.--MarSch 11:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with MarSch. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 12:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Saint Peter[edit]

Delete: This was redundant to the papal infobox and the page was too cluttered with its inclusion. Since Saint Peter was the only page on which it was used and I've removed it, it no longer fits the "templates should be used" rule (and I can't see it being used on any other pages.) MikeJ9919 19:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unused --MarSch 12:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Del Trödel|talk 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Presidents of the United States[edit]

Only created for transclusion of text, now unused. I excised a table from President of the United States and made it a template in order to transclude it back into President of the United States and also into List of Presidents of the United States. However, it was subsequently subst:ed into that list and edited further there. I have since learned that creating templates for the purpose of transcluding text is not a good idea, so the purpose of the present template has now vanished. --MarkSweep 00:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• deleete, unused --MarSch 12:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Del Trödel|talk 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Editnote[edit]

There's no need for a shortcut for this text:

<!-- Editors Note: {{{1}}} -->

— Dan | Talk 21:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete. Fredrik | talk 22:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agreed Trödel|talk 22:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep Although it is saving just a few keystrokes - I see no compelling reason to delete it - the cost to the server is minimal and some find it useful. Trödel|talk 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's just a normal HTML tag; no need for a template. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Template talk:Editnote#Usage points out at present it creates an HTML comment; one use of templates is so the results can be changed. (SEWilco 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Keep. The name "Editnote" clearly conveys what that section means to editors, many of whom may not be familiar with something as esoteric as html comment notation. Since the point is to provide clear instructions to editors (praticularly inexperienced ones) I feel that this template is useful. Also, I feel it is inappropriate to have someone go and subst its usages while this is still open. Dragons flight 22:39, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • That about esoteric markup could be said of any part of the MediaWiki syntax. Consider a template like {{link|target=World War II|title=World War II}} for comparison. If it is important that people see the message, a piece of text saying "note to editors" or something can trivially be inserted manually in the comment (with no more typing required). Fredrik | talk 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Someplace I had mentioned that one reason for this template is to avoid difficulties with HTML-sensitive editors, which may hide an HTML comment. I had stated that someplace earlier but now can't find it; it was in an article where the HTML comment kept vanishing as if an editing tool was removing it. Thus subst is counterproductive as it forces HTML presentation. (SEWilco 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Comment. This is a note to editors, whatever HTML it creates. This is a semantic label, not a shortcut. Template author: (SEWilco 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • <!-- --> is a semantic label that means "note to editors" already! Its purpose is not to specifically create a HTML comment in the HTML output from the parser. - Fredrik | talk 14:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Checked uses:
  • inApollo8: editnote|At that time it was called the Vertical Assembly Building}}-> should be put into the article
  • inEarth: editnote | Don't bother putting "MOSTLY HARMLESS" or "HARMLESS" or any Hitchhiker's Guide reference in here. It's been done to death. Find a gem with which to improve the article and you'll shine forever.}} -> this is just a useless(?) comment
  • inIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: EditNote | The "human-induced" phrase has been challenged several times. It is in the IPCC "About" page and the IPCC Principles, and indeed in the quote just above. }} -> helpfull, but why not make it a comment?
  • inPwn: editnote| Vandalizing this page with "PWNED" is neither original nor helpful. Find something new to add and your changes will last longer.}} -> this is just a useless(?) comment
• all in all I see no reason for this template at all. The claim about tools which strip out HTML-comments is moot. Fix the tools or find other; don't "fix" wikipedia. --MarSch 12:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be interesting to you to note that at least one vandal decided not to put "Mostly Harmless" on the Earth page after reading that note: [3]. Regardless though, the content of the editnotes is not really the issue in question. The issue is whether using "editnote" is a useful way of making/identifying comments. I feel that it is, though I suspect you disagree. Dragons flight 17:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is hardly surprising that a template intended for comments is being used for comments. (SEWilco 19:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))
    • I think the problem is that most people won't know how to do an edit note anyway, and thus it will have to be explained to them. Instead of explaining to use tl:editnote, one could as easily explain to use -->. So weak delete. Radiant_>|< 16:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Incidentally, when I edited Template_talk:Tfd#Usage just now I observed that there are editnote there which were not mentioned above — if it has been resolved whether to use {{tfd}} in the template or the template talk page, someone should properly document it there. (SEWilco 17:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, a new editor clever enough to understand wiki markup will understand <!-- --> if he sees it. If he doesn't know how to make a comment than he will end up findind the HTML tag, no need for a duplicate.--Nabla 00:13, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Substitute and delete, if your browser can't handle HTML comments in text boxes, Get Firefox. And what kind of editor would find this template without having an understanding of HTML comments anyway? Alphax ^τεχ 04:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • well, for new users, actual words might mean more than "<!--". It's not just a matter of who uses it, but also who reads it. --Sigmund Lahn
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I fail to see why this is any better than manually inserting the comments. If somebody doesn't understand comment tags, then they likely won't understand that template either. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:TimelineOfMuhammad[edit]

Single use on Muhammad. I just substed it in. --Dmcdevit 01:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete, singleuse template --MarSch 12:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this template probably won't be used elsewhere. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; it probably won't be used elsewhere, but having it inside the article makes editing much harder. - Mustafaa 23:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Defunct NFL teams[edit]

Inappropriate use of a navigational template because all of the articles are currently listed alphabetically just like the list on Defunct NFL teams. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My reasons come from the following quote on Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Article series boxes: Alphabetical order is not preferable, as categories naturally arrange articles alphabetically, making a series box redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• this template is used and alphabetical ordering is no reason for considering it inappropriate. If you don't like it you should discuss it at the pages using it. --MarSch 12:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think we really need to discuss navigational templates in general regarding their appropriateness. Or has this been done already? --MarSch 12:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep there have been discussions on navigational templates but despite strong feelings on both sides there has been no real consensus that I can see. However, since people work hard on these navigation aids and categories are more appropriate (IMHO) for looser relationships (instead of a limited number of very close relationships like this group of dufunct teams), I find them acceptable when used appropriately - like the changed crowns template below. Trödel|talk 14:02, 8 Ju74n 2005 (UTC)
  • I still say keep it but consolidate it along with Merging many of the defunct team pages together - especially those that moved location, etc. Trödel|talk 19:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the closest we have to policy regarding navigational templates is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, which currently supports Zzyzx11's claim that this template is inappropriate. On the other hand, this particular style guideline is so widely violated (see Wikipedia:Navigational templates) that IMO it should be considered to be incorrect. I think we need to resolve this, and that this dicussion should occur at Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates (and, if agreement can be reached, changes subsequently made to WP:CLS). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• delete this particular template. All articles seem to be eternal stubs that should be merged with a live team. Lots of (near) duplicates, such as
  • Boston Yanks
  • New York Bulldogs
  • New York Yanks
  • Dallas Texans (NFL)
• I've dropped a hint that they should be merged at Talk:Indianapolis_Colts#merging_some_stubs. For some reason Baltimore colts doesn't exist, but Baltimore Colts redirects to Indianapolis colts. --MarSch 14:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are not the same franchise. The NFL considers the Colts franchise to start in 1953.

• • Okay, I guess the example above was just a fluke, but I've not seen anything article-worthy, so I am still tempted to vfd them all. Unfortunately I don't think they'd survive that. They being vfd. --MarSch 14:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with a category. The CLS guidelines are relatively new and the template system has not yet been adapted to conform to them - SimonP 15:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• What is wrong with this template I made it and it took a good amount of time to do it. I love how other people on wiki love to delete someone's workSmith03 16:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • By contributing to Wikipedia, you accept that consensus might disagree with you and accept that anybody might eventually make changes to you work. Circeus 18:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I understand people can come along and edit somethin but to put something up for deletion just because a handful of people think it not useful is I believe an abuse. I made this temp so people could jump from team to team without having to go back to a list of team all the time. You'll understand what I mean when someone decided something you worked on has no value and so just be deleted because they just don't see any value in it. So are you guys going to delete the templates for the current NFL teams or NHL or NBA or MLS or MLB Smith03!~

• • • Except {{NFL}} sorts the teams by conference first, {{NBAteams}} sorts them by division, {{MLB}} sorts them by league, {{NHL}} includes articles about trophies and awards, and {{Major League Soccer}} also includes articles about regular seasons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Templates should not be used when a cat will do the job just fine. Circeus 18:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you folks decided to delete the page than at least do me the courtesy of putting a link on each team page back to the list of defunt nfl teams so that people have a way to go between teams. I am not going to waste my time to do that because apperently I already wasted my time by trying to create something that somepeople may find usefulSmith03 23:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) cheers

• Delete & convert to category, but maybe it would be helpful if the category also had them listed by year. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses5[edit]

Unnecessary over complication of disambiguation, we have enough disambiguation templates to do everything we could possibly want to do, the only thing this one does as well is give a short introduction to what page is about. Which the introduction will do anyway. Joe D (t) 23:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The other disambig templates just do not work well for proper names where the disambiguation is not because they have the same name. For example Jesus, Brazil For other uses, see Jesus (disambiguation just doesn't sound right. Trödel|talk 03:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Seeing as this one had hardly any discussion, and the votes are exactly tied, and the related Template:Otheruses4 was deleted, I am relisting this to get a consensus. Its lack of discussion is possibly because it never had a TFD template on it; I've added one now. Radiant_* 07:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also Template:Otheruses4 has a tfd on its talkpage, but was probably never listed here. What I see also from otheruses3, otheruses2 and otheruses, there seems to be a trend of increasing generalization. But personally I think {{for}} is all we need. --MarSch 15:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Otheruses4 is in the holding cell, and I've now replaced all instances with {{dablink}} so it's ready to go. Joe D (t) 16:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Some of these templates are used to refer to a disambiguation page, others to refer to one alternate page with a similar title. Thus I see the need for two templates. One that says "For disambiguation of PAGENAME, see [[{{{1}}}]]", another that says "There is also an article called [[{{{1}}}]]" or something. --MarSch 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Oh, and #4 was listed here earlier. Radiant_* 11:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wow, I didn't even realize there were so many other "Otheruses" templates, or in fact that they existed at all. These templates don't seem to perform the task of minimalizing effort, becuase the text used, is very minimal in its self. By the time I research which "Otheruses" template to use, I could have typed "For other uses; See: link." Other than keeping the text uniform in style, they're not as productive as other templates, and too many of them at that. <>Who?¿? 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Not redundant. Basically, it does the job. —Cantus…☎ 03:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Caribbean[edit]

unused, --MarSch 12:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a more accurate name for the region; Template:West Indies is a superior template, but it incorrectly includes The Bahamas. (Hmm - maybe this is a Merge vote, if such a thing exists on TfD, or maybe it's a Delete this one and Move Template:West Indies to this space. Guettarda 22:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete (see below). Guettarda 16:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Guettarda, redundant templates are a bad thing. Radiant_>|< 10:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Guettarda, though I must point out that if the Bahamas are an exception, Bermuda (also on this template) is doubly so. Although often linked with both the West Indies and the Caribbean, it is in neither. Grutness...wha? 13:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the Bermuda and Bahamas links could go into a See also:orNotable neighbours: line at the bottom of the template? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I thin I totally messed things up. The Bahamas is in the WIndies, but not the Caribbean since they do not actually touch the Caribbean Sea. So Template:West Indies is actually more accurate. (Open mouth, insert foot). Guettarda 16:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, okay. When we figure out where these places are all actually located, we can reference the neighbours at the bottom of the template. :-) Consider my comment suitably amended. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Add Turks and Caicos Islands to the list of neighbours, too! Grutness...wha? 02:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Does the title background on the template look really dark to anyone else, or is there just something wrong with my browser settings? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • looks like light blue to me. Not dark at all...--MarSch 17:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, found it. The template set the background color as bgcolor=#ccf. It works in some browsers but not others. I've changed it to bgcolor="#c0c0f0", which gives what (I think) is the pleasant lavender that everyone else sees...? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Good to know that doesn't work on some browsers and isn't standard, since I've seen it used before. Will replace it from now on if encountered. --MarSch 12:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Heavy metal music[edit]

unused --MarSch 11:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with above gren 23:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move. Template:heavymetal serves the same function but is actually used. Template:heavymetal should be moved to Template:Heavy metal music, as it is a more descriptive title. - Omegatron 20:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Deleteorredirect to the other template. -Sean Curtin 23:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and propose rename of Template:heavymetal as per Omegatron. This is one gaudy template. <>Who?¿? 08:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stolen[edit]

Unused. While I agree that there are too many images that are marked Fair use that shouldn't be, this template is not the answer. BlankVerse ∅ 17:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 17:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree. If a more free alternative should be used, then it's better to add the image to Wikipedia:image requests and raise the objection on the article's talk page. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain until creator votes to keep, as per my policy proposal, which I find _very_ unlikely happening in this case. --MarSch 18:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  User:· (talk · contribs), who did the only edit on this template, had a grand total of 134 edits according to Kate's tools, and left the building on 9 September 2004. I have left a message on their talk page, however, just in case. BlankVerse ∅ 10:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  It turns out that the User was permablocked on 9 Sep 2004 for being a troll, so they will be unable to vote. (see Special:Ipblocklist). BlankVerse ∅ 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, offensive. Radiant_>|< 09:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trolling. the wub (talk) 11:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it presumes to take for Wikipedia a rigid, black-and-white stance in the debate about what is and is not fair use. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the template itself is objectionable and poorly worded. However, even trolls create good articles and templates sometimes, this is not one of them. <>Who?¿? 08:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete simply rude! ℬastique▼^talk 02:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you don't think something's fair use, mark it Template:unverified or as a copyvio. Don't just complain. Superm401 | Talk 03:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Move to Wikitravel[edit]

Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project, and is not under the GFDL. Articles cannot be moved there without violating the GFDL. The template needs to be deleted as people are already confused about the subject and don't need any encouragement. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete- if people want to move pages to wikitravel, then they must first get the article dual-licensed by each contributor. But I suspect that most articles that would be candidates to be moved to wikitravel would also be valid articles here, so that's copying rather than moving. Besides, like Cyrius said, wikitravel isn't even a wikimedia project. This template does more harm than good. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I also thought that Wikitravel was a Wikimedia project (it looks very similar to Wikipedia). This template will unfortunately only add to the confusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Week keep if reworded. In principle it is a good idea, and an article's author can cut/paste it to Wikitravel, but the template should indicate the ramifications. Radiant_>|< 09:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Beside the fact that Wikitravel is not a sister project, they also use the non-compatible Creative Commons license instead of GFDL. The ONLY way that something could be cut-and-pasted from the Wikipedia to Wikitravel is if the article had only a single author who licensed the article under both licenses (see [4]). BlankVerse ∅ 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The related category is on CFD; I've asked people to not vote there but come here instead, to keep the discussion in one place. The remark below is copied from that CFD. Radiant_>|< 09:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  Well, the original author(s) could be asked to re-post the material on the other project. That would be legal, and somewhat useful. -- Beland 07:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused, and should not be used. (And that background color should be banned from the Wikipedia!). FYI: User:Spencer195 (talk · contribs) in the edit summary, says that the template was created "in response to request". BlankVerse ∅ 10:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And that request can be found at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Maintenance. Uncle G 22:27, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • Since this concern comes up every now and then and very few people are aware of when and why one can or cannot transwiki to WikiTravel, we need a place to explain it. This template could be a start, because it could redirect there so that if the unaware use it, they get shown what it's about. Radiant_>|< 10:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • There was a bunch of info that Ram-Man created when he was doing his dual-licensing project. On the other hand, if you read the WikiTravel article on dual licensing, you will find out that unless you are the sole author, that is not a very good solution either. BlankVerse ∅ 13:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - The only problem (other than the hideous background color) is that articles cannot be copy and pasted to Wikitravel en masse, due to licensing restrictions. There is a need for a way to designate an article as one that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but appropriate for Wikitravel, without misleading people into thinking that it is ok to do a simple copy and paste. --Bletch
• Delete. Not usable because of licence issues. --MarSch 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Because of license compatibility no page is a candidate to move there. The only way any can is by getting people to dual-license, and that takes time, effort, luck, and begging. Superm401 | Talk 03:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Carfuel[edit]

The sole purpose of this template seems to have been to get around the Petrol (gasoline) naming debate. Seems to have been maliciously created. Assuming good faith. ℬastique▼^talk 19:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As you said, this template circumvents on ongoing debate/vote. It also violates Wikipedia policy by establishing separate American and British article versions. I was going to propose its deletion, but you beat me to it. —Lifeisunfair 19:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Substantial article content should not be found outside of article space. --Carnildo 20:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Facilitating forks for different points of view is strongly discouraged; facilitating forks for U.S./British wording borders on the silly. Good intent from the template creator, but ultimately not a good resolution. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have a policy for dealing with English dialect differences. Forking the article is not that policy. - Omegatron 20:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have to admit to being enthused at first but after thinking about some of the unintended consequences I agree that this is not the way forward. hydnjo talk 21:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inappropriate use of a template. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just plain silly. Then the article needs to be renamed to Gasoline (orPetrol... frankly I don't give a damn). Then people need to realize/realise that throwing a fit over which flavor/flavour of English to use is a sign of needing important things to be concerned with. --Bletch 00:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Bletch. I also strongly diagree with Ed Poor's method of trying to unilaterally force an end to the huge amount of bickering in the Petrol/Gasoline/Stuff you put in cars-autos-motor vehicles to make them go debate. If all the people involved in that debate would realize that redirects are cheap and then had spent the same amount of effort into improving the article, it would have achieved Featured article status in record time. BlankVerse ∅ 12:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  We did find a lot of useful information in the process, though. We can expand our articles on English use around the world.  :-) Fighting isn't completely useless... - Omegatron 13:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Kbdank71 20:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Discussion moved to[edit]

Unused. Unsubstituted. Unnecessary. BlankVerse ∅ 11:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 'Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, occasionally useful. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Needless. Superm401 | Talk 03:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

{{DirectionUndecided}} and redirect {{Undecided}} and also Template:DirectionUndecidedSection[edit]

Yet more dispute templates. Used on exactly one article, and one category. BlankVerse ∅ 10:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) And yet another rarely used dispute template. Used on exactly two articles. BlankVerse ∅ 12:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

merged, so some double votes present, please undouble your own votes --MarSch 16:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I am not undecided about deleting this template. BlankVerse ∅ 12:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, instruction creep. Radiant_>|< 12:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it makes sense to maintain a fairly wide variety of templates for editing disputes. JYolkowski // talk 21:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  My personal opinion is that there are a few of the dispute templates that are well-used and useful, and they should be kept, and there are a bunch of others that are often ad hoc creations for limited purposes. All of those templates should be replaced with something similiar to the {{deletebecause}} template where an editor can add any commentary they want to handle any special circumstances. BlankVerse ∅ 12:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this is a note for the editors, not for a reader. If there is a current discussion, then the parties involved should watch the page, and kindly ask editors to participate in the discussion via their talk page. I would really hate to pick up a book and see the authors left a blank page; "Still has not been decided." Also agree with BlankVerse, if gonna keep, revamp and make it uniform with parameters. <>Who?¿? 08:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. m:Instruction creep BlankVerse ∅ 10:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, instruction creep. Radiant_>|< 12:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it makes sense to maintain a wide range of editing dispute-related templates so that the right one for the situation is available. JYolkowski // talk 21:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)Striking this vote out since this discussion has been merged with the above. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think it's a good idea to have hundreds of templates for each dispute. That's what the discussion page is for. Templates are really only needed when it's such a big problem that people need to know about it before they read further (NPOV, factual accuracy), or when the dispute is so large that people need to know before they edit the page. Let's not replace talk pages with templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A template and talk page serve two different purposes, the talk page is where contributors can discuss. A template on an article indicates to users and readers the status of the article. FT2 03:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but I don't think that we need templates for every possible status of an article. If there's a dispute about something, it's usually fine to just discuss it on the talk page and make the change when consensus has been reached. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Discourages people from editing. Before doing large edits you should check the talk page anyway, so this template is not useful. --MarSch 15:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all three of them - Template:DirectionUndecidedSection is, for instance, pretty useful on republic presently. My view: rather promote the use of these now still "exotic" templates, they can be very useful to avoid or pacify hardened edit wars. In that case it is very good to have a template with ***exactly*** the terminology & approach that is most pacifying. When you're in a discussion the idea that the template already was created in tempore non suspecto by some other wikipedian, who must have seen the use of it and took the effort to explain how it works best in wikipedia:templates (e.g. Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes), is far better than trying to construct something afresh in the heat of the discussion. "Uniformising" all to the about the same template is real creepy instruction creep. --Francis Schonken 21:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful for organization, and templates are cheap. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The direction of an article is never decided, and never should be. Superm401 | Talk 03:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:And[edit]

A template that takes seven characters to create six characters. {{and}} creates &bull; (•). Only used on a single User subpage. BlankVerse ∅ 17:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 17:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- useless. Don't replace unicode with templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely illogical. —Lifeisunfair 02:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless (and wasteful) use of template functionality. Also non-intuitive template name. --TheParanoidOne 05:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \wedge }$ Delete I wish I could at least hear the reasoning behind this one. I would have personally made a macro on my keyb. (sorry had to see how much of a difference it was compared to a wiki asterisk.) <>Who?¿? 09:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Now look what a mess we've made of User:Ilya/AG ! Ashibaka (tock) 15:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Aww, come on, you guys are so mean! Don't put the tfd notice if the template is so tiny! :P -Frazzydee|✍ 20:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  I thought about that before I added the {{tfd}} template, but since User:Ilya seems to have "left the building", and the template was only used on one page, I decided to add the tfd template anyway. Beside, I wanted to see what a really FUBARed Wikipedia page would look like. ;-). I have no objections if you want to remove the tfd template, or move it to Template talk:And. BlankVerse ∅ 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Baleted! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:esolangs[edit]

Lists eight arbitrarily selected languages from Category:Esoteric programming languages. That's pretty much redundant. Radiant_>|< 11:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, given there is a reasonable explanation for why these languages were chosen. I would assume that it's becausee they're the most popular/famous. If the chosen languages were picked at random, then this is a Keep & rewrite vote. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it is not given there is a reasonable explanation. It's just the individual opinion of one editor. Radiant_>|< 07:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  Another quick point: templates are navigational aids, and this template should hopefully make it easier for people to go through the most notable esoteric programming languages rather than sifting through every single esoteric language ever invented. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. They are definitely not arbitrarily selected. Read the caption of the box: Notable esoteric programming languages. They are the canonical, best known and most popular languages. --ZeroOne 22:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a very arbitrary criterion. Who decides that these the best known and most popular languages? Why aren't l33t and HQ9+ on there, to give a random sample? Wikipedia has a strong precendent for deleting such things as List of best movies as they are inherently the POV of the author? Radiant_>|< 07:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would rather have a link to a list of all the languages so I could find the ones I was interested in. There is no standard given for which are the most popular. As for a template, the Category:Esoteric programming languages is more than adequate as a navigational aid. <>Who?¿? 08:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Created in good faith, but clearly POV. —Lifeisunfair 13:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, much more useful for navigation than a category, content seems to have reasonable consensus. Kappa 14:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Where did you get that idea? Only three editors have ever edited the templates, and one of those disagrees with the other two. That's no consensus. Radiant_>|< 09:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV: the only entries you'll get agreement on are INTERCAL, the father of esoteric languages, and Malbolge, the most tortured language. I know I'd remove False and Shakespeare, the first for not being significantly more esoteric than APL, and the second for not being particularly well-known. --Carnildo 18:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• APL isn't technically an esoteric language since it was created for a purpose. gkhan 17:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons at WP:CLS#Article_series_boxes. POV. Category:Esoteric programming languages is perfectly adequate. Highlighting particularly notable esoteric languages can be done in the article Esoteric programming language. --Tabor 19:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons already given. -Sean Curtin 02:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Car fuel, Template:Fuel_Name and Template:Fuel_name[edit]

Citing his disdain for "bickering," Ed Poor (the admin referred to in the deletion request below this one) recreated his Carfuel template at Template:Car fuel and deleted the aforementioned ongoing debate/vote (which I then restored). He also created the Fuel Name and Fuel name templates (the former containing "Gasoline" with an uppercase "G" and the latter containing "gasoline" with a lowercase "g"), and has encouraged users to change these to "Petrol" and "petrol" (respectively), on a whim, perhaps based upon whether the day is odd-numbered or even-numbered. Clearly, he is acting purely out of malice, as is evident in his repeated mockery of the dispute resolution process (including posting a phony request for arbitration against himself) —Lifeisunfair 02:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all three, the first is inappropriate use of templates, and I don't see any point in the last two. Jeez, there oughta be a way for us to speedy this, I think we've established in previous cases that main article text doesn't belong in templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - but only after we settle where the fuel article should go: gasolineorpetrol. I'm surprised that Li'r would attribute to malice my motivation to streamline this process. (Can't take yes for an answer? ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 10:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, by "streamline," you mean, "derail." You've done nothing but throw a monkey wrench into the works (openly mocking the dispute resolution process all the while), and you have the unmitigated audacity to claim good faith. You're proudly bragging that your actions allow users to switch back and forth between the American and British terms "whenever the mood strikes us," and we're supposed to believe that you wish to settle the Gasoline vs. Petrol debate? And what bearing does the final outcome have on your ludicrous templates? They're invalid, no matter what. As for my failure to "take yes for an answer," that's an inaccurate statement; I never wanted to "win" in this manner. Sure, you moved the article back to Gasoline, but at the expense of legitimate dispute resolution. As far as I'm concerned, that's no victory. The article should remain at Gasoline for the time being (which the voting thus far dictates), but the discussion (which you deleted, in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy) should continue. And quite frankly, you should be stripped of the admin privileges that you're so eager to abuse. Your behavior isn't merely "poor" decision making, but outright trolling. —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Lifeisunfair, please remember WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:FAITH. If you have an issue, discuss it in private with the user, or if that fails, request comments. Radiant_>|< 12:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• 1. I'm commenting upon Ed Poor's "behavior," not Ed Poor himself. 2. Compared with both Ed Poor's rude remarks and the thoughts that are running through my mind, I'm being remarkably civil. 3. I did assume good faith, until Ed Poor began openly mocking the dispute resolution process and bragging about his sabotage. 4. I'm replying to Ed Poor's remarks, but I will take your advice regarding a request for comments. Thank you for your reply. —Lifeisunfair 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all three. The inappropriateness of using Template namespace for transcluding large chunks of article is mostly TFD and VFD tradition, and not any sort of guideline or policy, although I think that it should be very strong guideline. BlankVerse ∅ 12:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, Wikipedia:Template namespace clearly states that "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace". Radiant_>|< 12:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor's reply from his talk page: "I read Wikipedia:Template_namespace as far as provide cross-language portability of texts which are largely internationally the same, but contain some standard terms different in each language and then stopped. Have I missed something? The policy page you directed me to seems to recommend the very approach you object to."

That's how seriously he takes this matter (and by extension, this community and it members). —Lifeisunfair 18:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Inappropriate. We were actually getting close to a consensus before this... - Omegatron 13:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, never use transclusion for article prose. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 20:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~~~~ 19:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Pour Petrol on top, light with a match, then Delete ℬastique▼^talk 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Createdby[edit]

A very, very unWiki template. Also unused. I was tempted to to try to speedy delete it, but I am nominating it here instead. BlankVerse ∅ 15:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete BlankVerse ∅ 15:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. Creation details are available via page history. Also, signing of a piece of work implies ownership. No one person has ownership of a WP article. --TheParanoidOne 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete BlankVerse said it. smoddy 17:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, signing articles is against policy, hence: this template isn't needed. Inform creator. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Superm401 | Talk 03:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No useful or legitimate use. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 13:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This shouldn't be on here. It also sends a false message to newbies that you should sign your name in the article. And yes, please just look at the page history. --michael180 14:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• I've speedied it. -Lommer | ^talk 23:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Npov/perpetual[edit]

A variation on the {{NPOV}} template. Unfortunately, most articles that get the NPOV tag seem to keep it forever, but this template is not the solution for that problem. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. —Lifeisunfair 12:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Itp[edit]

This template has been around for almost a year and it appears to have never been used. It also violates self-references. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no longer needed.--Patrick 14:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

note: Patrick is the creator of Template:Itp BlankVerse ∅

Template:It icon[edit]

Another unused template of more recent vintage. Uses this image: to symbolize a link to an Italian language website. The template was originally used on the French Wikipedia. On the English-language Wikipedia there are going to be a large percentage of the readers who won't make the connection between it=Italian, so it will be much better to explicitly state that the link is in Italian. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but move the template to a different name and replace the current icon with one that's less ambiguous to readers of the English language.

I recommend the Italian flag: —Lifeisunfair 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many of the same people who won't associate "it" with Italy will probably not recognize the Italian tricolor either (a large percentage of the world away from Europe). It's better just to say something like "this link is in Italian". BlankVerse ∅ 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't advocate displaying a flag in lieu of such a statement, but I believe that it would be a logical supplement. —Lifeisunfair 16:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Not actually in use, delete. Radiant_>|< 15:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• delete.unused --MarSch 16:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated, saying it outright is better. Superm401 | Talk 03:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if I see an external link with that symbol, I'd have to first click the link to realize that the symbol means "this link is in italian". It would be much more effective if links just had (Italian) next to it. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:AidsNPOV[edit]

No idea what the purpose of this template is, but an AIDS denialist is using it on AIDS-related pages. Completely redundant with Template:POV. Rhobite 16:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Rhobite 18:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The point is that the talk page link points directly to Talk:AIDS/NPOV dispute. --Cryptic (talk) 16:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I missed that. I don't think that linking to a specific talk page is justification for an entirely new template. Rhobite 18:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• As per the comment, this version is needed for the current discussion occuring on a subpage instead of the talk page. It should be Subst:'d and then deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 18:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redundant. subst & delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• redundant. Delete -Irpen 02:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete. The template is redundant and poorly named. (AIDS is an acronym.)
• Delete. Not needed. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Needlessly specific. Superm401 | Talk 03:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Googletest[edit]

Extremely blatant template that was spammed all over VFD and that reads 'this articles should be googletested'. It completely destroys legibility of VFD, and googletest isn't an accepted standard anyway. I've temporarily blanked the template to make VFD more legible, you can view its likeness on its talk page. Delete. Radiant_>|< 16:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This template should be ambushed at the pass. BlankVerse ∅ 16:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I despair at the sight of the dreaded Google test. The last thing we need is an official-looking template encouraging everyone to use it. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kill Google! smoddy 17:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete cluttering up VfD page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google tests are useful in many situations, but using it as sole reasoning for a VfD vote is not a good thing, and using an official-looking template to perform it is even worse. It's been subst:ed in, so if you want to remove the boxes, it'll have to be done manually. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Painfully counterproductive! —Lifeisunfair 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ASAP --Tabor 19:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite?. That template needs to go away, but I am wondering if there might be constructive uses for a template embodying the google test concept, since some people will inevitable continue to use the test regardless of whether it is generally accepted. I would suggest something like:

  [[Wikipedia:Google test|Google test]]: A search on ''{{{query}}}'' produces {{{number}}} results [http://www.google.com?q={{{query}}}].

  Dragons flight 19:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite to something less voluminous. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete googol times. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete'. Manual google tests can always be done. This is just a waste of space. Furthermore, I think people do enough google tests without encouragement. What the web contains is just as arbitrary as what Wikipedia has, and has nothing to do with what a good encyclopeid should contain. Superm401 | Talk 03:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Manual google tests are better than automated ones anyway, since simply googling the article's name is rarely a reliable way of using an already only vaguely reliable test. Most more effective google tests use a combination of words from the article - something unlikely to be automatable. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Crank[edit]

Probably speedy delete candidate, but I am still listing it here. BlankVerse ∅ 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, not a speedy. But personal attacks, unwiki, self-referential. What more do you want? smoddy 17:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks? Noting that a certain idea is generally rejected hardly constitutes a "personal attack" as such. Certainly, proponents of such an idea may be offended by stating that, but it's true nonetheless--and important. As for as "unwiki" and "self-referential", well, what the hell are you talking about? Kurt Weber 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What's wrong with it? If a certain topic discussed in WP is at odds with what is generally held to be true by the vast majority of experts in its particular field, it should be marked as such. Kurt Weber 18:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If it is such, then it should either be explained in the text or listed for deletion, circumstances depending. In short, we should be able to tell what this template says, without the template itself. smoddy 18:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "If it is such, then it should either be explained in the text"--yes, and that's what the template does--explain up front that the idea isn't widely accepted. That it lacks widespread acceptance does not in and of itself make it unworthy for inclusion. Kurt Weber 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No, what this template does is effectively allow a fork of an article, with a disclaimer at the bottom. The "crankiness" of the article should be shown by writing, not by a generic boilerplate. It is wonderfully unobtrusive. So unobtrusive that you won't notice it. And no, I don't want you to make it big and orange. smoddy 21:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Will only lead to arguments and edit wars about its inclusion, rather than reaching NPOV/consensus form of article. --Tabor 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how that constitutes a valid reason for deleting it.Kurt Weber 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if it's complete nonsense or rubbish, it should be deleted. No need to template tag such a thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • That a certain idea or proposition is a crank does not mean it is "complete nonsense or rubbish". It simply means that, as I stated above, it "is at odds with what is generally held to be true by the vast majority of experts in its particular field". There's a big difference. Kurt Weber 20:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just an excuse for non-NPOV. The use of a template at the top lends an unnecessary official air. If a view is considered incorrect by experts, the article should explain that fact, and all details about it. For example, it should say when the perspective began to be viewed as invalid. It must mention any reasons this is thought to be true. It should mention any rebuttals to the claim it is flawed. It shouldn't just have a boilerplate notice that condemns the idea before the article begins. Superm401 | Talk 03:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unhelpful, and huge potential for edit-warring. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)