Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Listings

December 20

Template:Unimage

• Ambigious copyright tag, the text basically says we don't know the copyright of this image. Images in this category should be dealt with under the existing fair use system, delete.--nixie 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Specifies the image to be UN property. Maybe the UN will grant us rights to use their images sometime in the future. Then we will be lamenting the loss of this template. Ashibaka tock 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• If they do, we can always undelete it. Delete for now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. Ronald20 ☎ ✎ 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

December 19

Template:Dubious

Breaks article flow and improperly injects the reader into page content disputes (which was the primary objection raised against Template:Afd-noconsensus and Template:Twoversions). It also contains a cross-namespace link to the article talk page. Firebug 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Language link; also equivalent Template:Ll

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

By the way, the inappropriateness of this template is underlined by the hideous way this is showing up in articles now that I tagged it with {{tfd}}: most of the time it's sitting in the middle of prose. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I changed {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix that issue. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. Agree with Jmabel. --Khoikhoi 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete --Gareth Hughes 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Language" is a word that is frequently misspelled, whereas "subst:ll" is rather more difficult to get wrong. Chris talk back 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:AustraliaGov

• Uninformative and ambigious image copyright tag, there is a very good tag for PD images from Australia {{PD-Australia}}, fair use images that might be tagged with this tag should be tagged within the current fair use structure, delete.--nixie 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-Australia-CC}}. This template doesnt do anything new. Agnte 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• So what do we do with the images that have this tag? If we know the image is 50+ years old, we tag it {{PD-Australia-CC}}, but otherwise, what tag should they have? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've already moved everything that could be more accurately tagged, all that remains is some military insignia which I see can be tagged with {{Military-Insignia}}.--nixie 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:SummersEve

• Delete.: Can we speedy this? Its only purpose is for personal attacks on users. BrianSmithson 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: First, there is nothing in the speedy policy to allow this to go fast. Second, anything can be used as personal attacks, that doesn't mean anything. If people are engaging in personal attacks, there is a policy for that. This is valuable in increasing the morale of the wiki editors and provides entertainment if used tastefully. -- Jbamb 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete.--nixie 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and sanction creator. Guettarda 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Its an attack template. It shouldn't be used WP:NPA Agnte 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I cleared it, delete it. -- Jbamb 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted, at request--Sean|Black 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Parappa

• Delete: The songs just redirect back to the article that the template is on or are not yet created. Not needed. Thorpe 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There was an AFD about the song articles, and the consensus was to merge and redirect into Parappa the Rapper. This template is all that remains of the pre-AFD version of things. — BrianSmithson 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lowercase-Apple

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

• Delete, we can't be this specific for this type of thing, and the Apple logo is not fair use on this template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above (but perhaps put a noinclude thing around the tfd tag because it's ugly on some pages). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too specific; {{lowercase}} is just fine for this purpose. —Psychonaut 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:UK A

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

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

Template:UK B

Please see the discussion of Template:UK A above.

Template:ContraSub

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

• Delete - against longstanding Wikipedia custom not to put tags permanently on article pages. Also, the hand-in-a-stop-sign image is widely (on Wikipedia) used to mean - "you've been blocked, or are in deep trouble in some way" and so is inappropriate for a mere friendly alert that a topic is controversial. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would suggest putting it on the talk pages, but seeing that {{controversial}} already does that, there's no need for this template, as placing them on the article page is quite bad form. Also, it should be {{ControSub}}, not {{ContraSub}}, but that's a different matter. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 06:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Every casual reader will see this and a casual reader doesn't need to have his attention drawn to the talk page; it was added to GNAA because of the AfDs and Featured article nominations, but any editor experienced enough to AfD or nominate things for FA status will probably know to look at talk pages first anyway. CanadianCaesar 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, this goes against BE BOLD. "Discuss changes on the talk page first"? No thank you. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Controversial articles need more editing, not less. -Silence 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

December 18

Template:S

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

• Delete - Unless I'm missing something, this serves no purpose --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - See User:Kukkurovaca/BuddhistShortcuts for the original intent. - Mark Hurd 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that it has been SUBSTed where it was actually being used (which should have been done before nomination IMHO). —Phil | Talk 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mexico Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Elink

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

December 17

Template:Policylist

A) We don't need goofy cartoon pictures making our policy pages look like jokes. B) Perfectly adequately addressed by categories. C) Overly selective. D) The world does not need more ugly boxes. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This has been temporarily commented out of the policy pages and a shrunken version is being hacked on - see also Template talk:Policylist - David Gerard 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Too big, and overshadows the policy page itself. Maybe a little something at the bottom, but this is too much. -- SCZenz 23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks good to me. Conveys a serious link between important WP policies and guidelines in an aesthetically pleasing way, jguk 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems fine to me. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the images are removed. They look silly, and Snidely there can't be fair use in this template, can he? android79 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, looks like "Snidely" is just a very, very good imitation. Still don't like the images, though. android79 01:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What I was trying to promote was making personal attacks "evil" with the picture but over objections I replaced that image with the "dont bite newbies" one. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure what to do about the images, though. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If you image-search Google for Snidely Whiplash, that image shows up on quite a few different sites, apparently identified as the cartoon character. Whatever its origin, it appears to be so easily confused with the copyrighted/trademarked character as to be inappropriate for use like this. Monicasdude 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It wasnt a copy vio but, I did decide to replace it with "dont bite newbies" image. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• A template with a list of key policies might be useful if it could be maintained. I am skeptical about the feasibility of that task. I would rather have no list than an incomplete list. As such, my opinion is a weak delete. The cartoons on this list, however, trivialize the policies and present an attitude not of informality but of ridicule. They are entirely inappropriate. I don't really care if someone used this on their userpage but I strongly object to its use on any regular page. If kept in its current format (with the cartoons), I must argue that we are better off without it altogether and would change my opinion to strong delete. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "selection criteria" question seems to have been answered on the template's Talk page. While I'm not sure that we have the right content yet, that's a discussion that can be continued on the Talk page. Change my "weak delete" opinion to abstain. Rossami (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I do not see whats wrong with it. There is nothing goofy about the cartoons. It is indeed overly selective however it does link to everything. which is several pages long (just the list). The most imperative policies are mentioned for beginners Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedie delete since I am not allowed to use images on it, I have no reason to support the existance of that template. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, hey Phil, this sounds like a content dispute to me. Why not debate this on the templates talk page and gain consensus rather than "nuking the site from orbit". —Locke Cole 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is fine for user pages, but on the actual policy pages it is redundant with the {{policy}} template (which is also much more attractive and and has a cleaner presentation). If it's proposed that this be on policy pages, I'd say delete just to keep it the heck away from them. If it's going to be only on user pages and other pages that aren't facing our entire user base, then I'd say keep.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I know that but we have too many policies and its confusing. These really are the core policies. What is core and what isn't is subject to a discussion, no doubt. However I really feel listing everything on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on this template (which does link to that page) a very bad idea. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 04:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps that means that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines needs a rewrite, not that we need a new box? If this is just a band-aid (and I'm not presuming that it is right yet), then it's not going to help in the long run.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful summary of major policies. Trödel|talk 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I removed all three pictures, both because they were too big and because the "Villain" picture was tpo unserious for a policy page. Keep revised version. Firebug 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Cool Cat seems to have a problem with others editing it. --SPUI (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have problem with you editing. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Chill out, Cool Cat. android79 06:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh I am calm :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Then assume some nice, calm good faith. Phil Sandifer 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Not to SPUI. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes. To SPUI. Phil Sandifer 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Nope I have a zero tolerance policy towards trolls. I cannot. Sorry. GNAA is as trollish as one gets. With that offensive user talk page of his braging about 'helping drive him off!' admins he will recive maximum hostily from me. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't look ugly. - 211.30.173.113 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure. Not an inherently awful idea, but I'd lose no sleep if it died. WAY too big. Not sure about ordering. Possibly acceptable with serious work. I'll try to find time to have a hack at it - David Gerard 10:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Boy, and after I'd taken my crack at it and made it smaller. Check the history, this thing was ghastly big originally (but unlike some, I see the potential!). =) —Locke Cole 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised version. the wub "?!" 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the box, get rid of pictures. Zocky 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It is missing all of the useful and important policies. Bensaccount 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but hopefully improve. All the wikipedia guidelines and policies are like a big unsorted "to do" list. This is a step in the right direction where users might take them seriously as having some sort of finiteness. Stevage 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In response to objections raised that it was inappropriate to have a TFD tag prominently featured on policy pages, I created a refactored deletion notice that fits into the bottom of the navigation box and has wording that may be less intimidating to newbies. I hope this is acceptable. Firebug 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I also added WP:POINT and WP:BEANS. Firebug 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when was BEANS a policy or a guideline? -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hideous, selective and being spammed all over the place. -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's fantastic. The template has been transformed in recent days and it looks good, and is concise and to-the-point. A welcome addition. Dan100 (Talk) 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and it seems as though that we are now discussing a different template (in the evolution of templates, anyway) than the one that was originally nominated for deletion. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has been cleaned up and looks professional, and as long as the goofy pictures aren't included. --NormanEinstein 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Jbamb 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:UKUSA Community

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

Template: BostonInfoBox

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

• Speedy Delete - It was probably made by a user who didn't quite know what they're doing. The page that linked to it has been fixed to use Infobox City, so there's no need for this thing to be around any longer. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Afd-noconsensus

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

• Delete - Why would an AFD result of "no consensus" have any bearing on whether or not someone would want to read an article? → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Exposes too much of the workings of Wikipedia to the casual reader. Also, as per nom and the guy with the big sig above me. :) FreplySpang (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gives the false impression that "no consensus" is not functionally "keep", which it is. Other templates already allow one to note that the result was "no consensus". Also, the "You may wish to take this into consideration when deciding whether or not to read this article." is horrifyingly POVed and presumptive. -Silence 14:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by the link to the deleted page notice, which invites the reader to pretend that the page has been deleted and protected. —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, boxcruft. AfD conclusions belong on talk pages, not in big ugly boxes at the top of the article. If there is doubt about factual accuracy, use {{disputed}}. In any case, AfD is not for deciding whether the content is accurate or not, but merely whether the subject is worth including in Wikipedia at all. The two issues are orthogonal, and should not be confused like this template does. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. android79 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme predjudice against further attempts to suggest that articles need 2/3 consensus to exist in the first place. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per everybody.--Sean|Black 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, also per everybody. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. Delete borderline nonsense with the link to the deleted page; it does indeed show malice to articles kept by no consensus. CanadianCaesar 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This template was created by Firebug because he doesn't like the result of an Afd that he participated in. He's been trying all sorts of desperate measures including redirecting the article without consensus (and without even seeking a conensus). Here he is placing it on the article: [1] RJII 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per reasons above. gtdp 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete. Deletion policy needs a dynamite enema in general, but we can start by unpicking things like this that are used for assumption of bad faith - David Gerard 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - There is a difference between a consensus keep and a technical keep. One means that there was agreement to keep the article, the other means that there wasn't agreement to delete. The existing template allows the closing admin to specify the result, be it "keep" or "no consensus", we don't need another template for this specific case when the general one will do. Chris talk back 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Place Subject Here-footer

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

• It looks like a "template for making templates". Just copying the syntax from another template is usually enough, and this is neither special nor educational. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Correction

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

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

--Qirex 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied. Call me a rouge admin if you like, but these bulletin-board-style posts have no place in any article, ever. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler3

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

• Delete. We only need one spoiler template. Really.--Sean|Black 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if we needed another, this is not it. BDAbramson T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 _→AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. Yuck indeed. --Qirex 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Okay guys, I'm sorry I ever made {{spoiler2}}, I had no idea it would lead to this ... --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I still think we need a better spoiler template than the one we have, but this one is clearly not acceptable. Kafziel 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gerard Foley 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I won't get into the spoiler-template design thing outside of the fact that this is an unneeded, unacceptable template that should be deleted. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not acceptable. -- DS1953 ^talk 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

December 16

Template:Album_infobox_2

It's time to put this one out of its misery. If the discussion when this deletion was first proposed wasn't (quite) convincing (archived here [2] ), the choices of active editors are now clear. So far this month, for example, it's been used in only 14 new album articles; in contrast, the standard template has been used in more than 750. Overall, this template is currently used in just under 750 articles, while the standard template is used in nearly 10,000. Since nobody's made an argument against a uniform infobox style in album articles, and the preference of active editors is overwhelmingly clear, I can't see any reason not to Delete (with whatever cleanup of the existing use is required). Monicasdude 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• How about just setting it as a REDIRECT? There wouldn't be need for any cleanup. --Tokle 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep – the preference is not overwhelmingly clear. It takes more effort for people to use this template, and couple this with the fact that it's not as well advertised, I'm not surprised at the disparity in usage. I'll also note that you went through at least five albums and removed this template from them prior to nominating it here. IMO that's bad faith, and I'll be digging further through your contribs to see if you've been violating WP:POINT. —Locke Cole 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. There is a clear infobox recommendation. If you want to try to build consensus for a change to a new template, convince the WikiProject to adopt it. Removing this template is editing to the guidelines of both a WikiProject, WP:FAC standards, and to Wikipedia:Fair use. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of WikiProject Albums and aware of the template promoted there. This template is nearly identical to the template there except for the additional navigational images. In so far as your latter comment: the only way it "edits to the guidelines" of WP:FAC is in so far as it agrees with a WikiProject exactly, and I've made my arguement in the previous sentence for why I think that's irrelevant. This isn't some drastically different template/fork, it's nearly identical to the one used by the WikiProject. As to Fair use, it is my opinion that usage of images in this way is in compliance with fair-use. I liken the relationship between {{Album infobox}} and {{Album infobox 2}} as being the same as {{Afd}} and {{Afdx}}. Very minor, but enough of a difference that it warrants a seperate template. —Locke Cole 01:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My arguments for this are at Template talk:Album infobox 2. Briefly, this template differs from the WikiProject recommendation by adding two more album covers. That means more graphics to d/l, a bigger box, and more overuse of unfree content. Wikipedia:Fair use encourages us to use copyrighted images as little as possible, and WP:FAC examines that use very strictly. The use of this template (and the ensuing edit-wars) means that album articles are often frustrating to work on. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - makes additional use of fair use images which should be kept down (and is in my opinion more irritating than helpful as the images link to the image pages, and not to the album's articles). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Template is useful, more presentable and any claims of "fair use" abuse have not been proven. This discussion is a waste of time, as it was in October. BGC 21:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be a clear consensus against this version and no consensus to use it in place of the pre-existing template. Gamaliel 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, both templates seem to be used pretty substantially. No compelling reason to delete has been offered. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an unnecessary template fork. - Lee (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Encourages the mis-use of non-free images. Also a usability nightmare, as the "next cover" and "previous cover" images don't link to the articles they seem to be linking to. --Carnildo 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Argue, don't fork. Fair-use issues, etc. Bad idea. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As it's been covered already: I've seen no convincing argument that this isn't covered by fair use; the "additional images to download" argument is rediculous, even on dial-up, the size of those images is negligble; I see no convincing argument to delete. As an additional note, if someone can point out a statement from the concensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums against the use of this template, I'll change my vote to delete. Their page lists infobox as the standard, which it is. This means that it has the majority of use, not that the other shouldn't be used. Until something more convincing comes along, I will continue to vote keep. Arturus 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Carolaman 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo.—jiy (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same as my previous vote over this. The "navigational images" direct the user to the image page itself. Fair use issue (i.e., it isn't fair use). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not convinced that this is in conflict with fair use policy, due to the very small display size (50px) and the fact that the albums displayed are only the preceding, current, and following albums. I have seen numberous instances where editors have created discographies of musicians and displayed 100px+ images for each album ever released by that artist (eg The Beatles discography, U2 discography, Michael Jackson discography, Pink Floyd discography, Led Zeppelin discography etc). That is excessive, not this. I do not necessarily advocate this infobox over the other one, however I personally use album infobox 2 when placing an infobox on an album page where one is not already present. I don't think it is right to change album infobox 2 to album infobox nor visa versa. If people are passionate about which infobox they percieve to be the correct one, I urge those users to place whatever they want at any of the albums listed here, and not to change existing infoboxes as that is far less constructive and far more likely to cause unnecessary conflict. --Qirex 08:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I find it more irritating than helpful for navigation, as the images link to the image pages rather than the article pages. I also think it's completely pointless to display the same image for an album twice in an infobox. HarryCane 12:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is it possible to make the pictures link to the album though? ProveIt 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You can say there's a same problem with pictures not linking to the intended page at Wikipedia:Reference desk, but they aren't complaining, are they? Keep because it's harmless. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template forks suck. See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace for details. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo, and also Mirv's comments on template forking. --NormanEinstein 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo, Mirv. android79 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo and Wikipedia:Fair use. Extraordinary Machine 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, think there is an amount of certainty for fair use for such articles. -- Natalinasmpf 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nat is right. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo; also per Mirv, especially as the template fork introduces inconsistency when navigating through a band's albums and different albums use different templates. Nothings 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: BTW, for anyone concerned about usability issues (specifically, that when you click on the image you're taken to the image page, not the specific album pictured), please look at {{Click}}. Assuming this survives TfD, someone should look into integrating this into {{Album infobox 2}}. —Locke Cole 08:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have made an attempt at integrating "click" into the template at template:Album infobox test. I can't get it to work right though. Someone with a bit more programing skill should take a look at it. --Tokle 22:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I quite agee with the infrobox 2 but do appreciate the usability issue raised in the last posting. Click on the image should take the user to the album NOT the image, that can happen on the main album page itself. Kevinalewis 11:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kevinalewis. Album cover ABSOLUTELY should be linked to the article, NOT the picture. --Cjmarsicano 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:PC

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

• Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to {{PresChoice}} or something that removes the ambiguity (I don't think that an apostrophe can be used in the title, right?). Courtland 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - we really don't need this- agree with Aecis' arguments. --G Rutter 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fancruft

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

• Delete for the following reasons: (1) orphan (2) silly (3) don't put self-references on article pages unless they're REALLY important! Ashibaka tock 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There's no such thing as fancruft, it's just a buzzword for people to use when they want to convince other people that a topic isn't noteworthy. Concerns like this should be brought up on the Talk page, where civil discussion is possible, not introduced with something as hostile as a buub (big ugly useless box) stamped on the page. -Silence 17:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, bordering on nonsense outside AfD CanadianCaesar 00:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you believe there is such a thing as fancruft, as I do, the solution to that is to remove it from the article, not to add this ugly-ass notice to the top. android79 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well put. -Silence 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subsumed by Template:Cleanup et al. —Psychonaut 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as well as Android79. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete take it to the talk page. QQ 22:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps it should be replaced by this? Chris talk back 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fictional animals cat

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

• • Question: redundant with what? What else already exists that does the job of this template? Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and then delete. ^BlankVerse 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question; where would you put this list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Listify and delete I agree with BlankVerse Arturus 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and delete, per above. BDAbramson T 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am somewhat mystified as to the actual problem with this template. It provides navigation between a huge number of related categories: how would this be made any easier by forcing users to navigate via some other separate list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:UK ties

delete: Orphaned at some point, {{UK ties2}} used in place of it. Thanks/wangi 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and redirect {{UK ties2}} to it. I prefer this version. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias - SoM 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias--Mais oui! 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

{{UK ties2}} is used only on United Kingdom. Subst either of these templates and then delete both. No need to clutter the template namespace with single-use templates that will only slow us down (in more ways than one). Chris talk back 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:P-protected

And Category:Protected due to publicity

This template is for protection due to high visibility... which is unwiki and against current policy. We protect pages that have excessive vandalism ({{vprotect}}), but not before. In fact, the fact that an article was mentioned somewhere that it is getting attention is good and presents our face to new visitors. As well as the fact that new visitors represent a chance for our article to improve by their edits, and shouldn't be protected from them except in extraordinary circumstances. As well, it's in direct contradiction to WP:PPol, which says:

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.

May also want to review User:Raul654/protection for the reasons behind this. Should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - regardless of the protection policy, recent events have made it clear that this is not the case, as Jimbo protected the Seigenthaler article prior to the CNN appearance, and Kyra Phillips was protected the moment she mentioned it. This ought not become regular behavior, however it is clear that there is a threshold at which point we protect, in which case this template is important. Note that this template also encourages users towards other articles that they can edit, mitigating many of the problems of "But we want the first article people hit to be editable" Phil Sandifer 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not about wanting the readers to be able to edit, it's about the encyclopedia. Editing is how our encyclopedia functions. In any case, this template is not a good way to make policy, or even common practice. If you want to propose this policy (which I would dispute at this point), do so, but don't put it into practice without consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not putting it into practice. Jimbo already has put it into practice. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This template is an attempt to make it common practice without community support. You cannot pretend that Seigenthaler is an ordinary situation. The fact is that while Jimbo has the ultimate goal of our encyclopedia always in mind, he is sometimes out of touch with the specifics of how things work at a given time (a certain 17 second block comes to mind). He has worries other than editing here every day. If anything I would say this is a much more IAR necessitated action, rather than a new practice that is anything like policy yet. Dmcdevit·t 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is not the ideal forum for policy considerations, which is the basis of Dmcdevit's objections. Besides, IMHO, that paragraph in WP:PPOL is unjustifiably optimistic (and appears to refer only to online sources, to boot), and should probably be changed. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I think that this would make sense if there was a policy proposal... but right now it's just wrong. Nothing will reasonably be protected with this template. Dmcdevit·t 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, high volume public pages need some sort of label.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No article should ever be "protected due to publicity", since the entire point of getting publicity for Wikipedia is to let people edit the article being publicized so the Wikipedia process gets the news out. Also, it's not a good habit to protect articles just because they're being vandalized; reverting vandalism is easy, and articles that are receiving lots of edits are also getting plenty of good editors in addition to the vandals. Protecting pages should only be used as an anti-vandalism measure in truly extreme cases, not as a regular, everyday tool (for the same reason articles featured on the main page aren't locked). All it takes to make sure that none of the vandalisms are slipping through is to do what I always do: do a compare between the current version and the version 20 or 30 edits ago, and see if any new vandalism has slipped in (particularly effective since I've found that major edits that aren't vandalism are relatively rare for high-publicity articles). In any case, this template is unnecessary and redundant to other templates that already address the "protected due to vandalism" and "prone to vandalism due to having been recently cited or linked to" issues. Also, embarrassingly self-referential and bloated; does it really need the "800,000" self-advertisement bit added at the end? -Silence 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You may say that no article should ever be protected due to publicity, but Jimbo directly countered you on that one, so the objection is moot - he had John Seigenthaler Sr. protected before going on CNN. As for the self-advertisement bit, yes - the expectation is that the page in question is going to be the first Wikipedia page hit by a huge swarm of people who do not know much about Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I already know that Jimbo directly countered me on this one, as you've already stated it above. This would certainly influence my vote, were it not for the simple matter.. that Jimbo is wrong. Templates like this will do nothing but embarass Wikipedia and stunt it's growth at times when it most needs to be consistent and open to new contributions and exploration of the editing process. The best response to vandalism is reversion, not protection; protection should be the exception, for only the most brutal cases of vandalizing—not the norm. And if there's a vandalism storm going on, whether the article's being frequently populated right now or not isn't irrelevant, as the problem's still the same. -Silence 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• You gravely misunderstand how Wikipedia policy works. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Regardless of how grave my misunderstanding is, Jimbo doesn't become any more right no matter how many times one says "Jimbo did X". If my opinion is invalid because Jimbo is a god on earth whose will is not to be defied by the likes of mere mortals, then feel free to ignore my opinion, but that in itself will neither change it nor prevent me from expressing it. If our only purpose here is to interpret what we think Jimbo wants, not to interpret Wikipedia policy and goals and what's best for the articles, then we should probably skip the voting process on this issue altogether and just ask Jimbo to cast the only vote on the matter, then go with that. No need to run around in circles if the decision's pre-made, sure. But it's still a poor template that does not benefit Wikipedia.
• Incidentally, based on what I know of the situation involving the articles that Jimbo protected, don't you think that it's more likely that he protected those articles because the ongoing news they were involved in directly related to Wikipedia? Plenty of articles get linked to and mentioned in the news all the time, but they don't usually get protected right off the bat; the difference here is not that the articles were especially prone to vandalism, but rather that vandalism was especially dangerous because Wikipedia's reputation was on the line due to the subject of the news being Wikipedia itself. So, even if protecting a page is warranted in such a situation, protecting it with a tag like this one is pointless and highly misleading. A tag involving the fact that the article is in the news because of itself (as was the case with John Seigenthaler Sr.) would be much more relevant and honest. -Silence 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, again as per Silence's comments above. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. High profile articles might be what draws attention to wikipedia, but new users should spend some time getting to know the correct way to edit articles. They shouldn't be editing the first page they ever see. By the time they learn the ropes, the page that got them here will no longer be protected and they will be able to make whatever reasonable improvements they want. Kafziel 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. Ugly, verbose, and unecessary. ^BlankVerse 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Publicity draws new experts to articles; those experts can't contribute if article is protected. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Delete contrary to policy, based on a misuderstanding of Jimbo's actions in the Seigenthaler case; per Silence. It's a mistake anyone could have made, but it's still a mistake. Articles are not and should not be protected due to publicity; they are (sometimes) protected due to self-reference (i.e. the Main Page is particularly visible in Wikipedia therefore it is protected), the Seigenthaler (and Kyra) page's were particularly visible due to their subjects involvement with Wikipedia, therefore they were protected). JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment, and eventually Redirect to {{sprotect}}, when that comes online. I view this as a patch measure, since Semi-protection seems to cover the reasons for this template, but isn't operational yet. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference

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

Template:CHSUB

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

• Delete; useless, noise only. Schutz 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC

Template:2004

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

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. BDAbramson T 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

December 15

Template:Webber

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

• Yeah, get rid of it. Beyond unwiki into just plain rude. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Guettarda 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and remove all instances from non-User page spaces; any use on a non-User page of any kind should be dealt with as vandalism. Courtland 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I see no point in userfying - there are no instances in any space, and it's a bad template to have, period. BDAbramson T 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied by me. No reason for this to stay around any longer. android79 01:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mainarticles

Template not used. Superseded by {{main}}. CG 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{main}}. This is logical alternative name, and is likely to be used by editors unaware that the actual template has been superseded. —Lifeisunfair 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to main. --Stbalbach 21:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is no longer in use and (in my opinion) unlikely to be recreated with this name. Courtland 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I just used {{main articles}} on State highways in New Jersey, not knowing it had been redirected; I could have just as easily have guessed the form without a space. --SPUI (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Supercbbox

Delete: It's unnecessary to have a infobox for every little thing. This template just contains information that can all easily be covered in the lead section. Also, it lists the title both on top and then again in Statistics for no apparent reason. And it's only used on a handful of articles, hardly filled-out in some of them (like Alias (comics)). All in all, it's not very helpful and rather chunky. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete without prejudice against an improved version being created. I have no problem with the concept of this infobox, but it's very badly implemented - SoM 13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Your arguments didn't convince me as to why it should be deleted, and my position is "Keep" by default. The template could use some fixing up, sure, so ... fix it up instead of deleting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyde (talk • contribs)
• Keep - The infobox is good for Comics Series (ex.Supreme Power) and Graphic Novel (ex.Watchmen), articles of no one can uses the other three infobox. Yes fix up instead of deleting it input your prograing to User:Brown Shoes22 --Brown Shoes22 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This infobox works marvellously on the Watchmen page. It clearly shows the type of comic Watchmen was, and the fact it is now a graphic novel, which is informative to first-time readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthesestars (talk • contribs)
• Keep (but fix)... and Brown Shooes22, just speak ONCE when voting. Dyslexic agnostic 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as it is improved. The "creators" line is no good for long-running corporate-owned series and anthologies. --Pc13 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

December 14

Template:FrTed

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

• Keep was created as a tongue-in-cheek way of dealing with light vandalism where a heavy warning was merely likely to drive a new user away. It and the rest in the series are intended to be a lighthearted way of asking people to stop doing stupid things. Has been used in that context and worked in all cases. It and all the other templates that exist deal with specific problems that the test templates are unsuited to handling. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep per Jtdirl. Izehar (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasoning as {{Behave}}, plus this one is slightly worse; folks on both sides of the pond have likely heard of Austin Powers. I'm guessing most non-UK users will be left scratching their heads... android79 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually Father Ted is shown in among other places the United States, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and even in Latin America. You seriously underestimate the international audience of the show. It has a particularly strong cult viewership among students in part of the US. It was chosen for the template on that basis. You may not be aware of it. Millions of other (non British people) are. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone is disputing that people watch Father Ted. But I think we can all agree that not everybody does. The probability of a random vandal not knowing of it (or not liking it) is too great for this template to be of practical risk-free use in any such contexts. EldKatt (Talk) 15:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete there is no reason to assume that a particualr user knows of a perticualr TV show, and this is nmot an appropriate way to handle a light-hearted warning, IMO DES ^(talk) 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gerard Foley 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless. If vandal-removers want to use this template, so be it. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same as with the behave-template. Variations of the sterile test1 and test2 can be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jtdirl. Gary Kirk 12:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If a "light-hearted" warning is necessary, use one without pop culture references. (I have no idea what this one is about). Kusma (討論) 14:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - certainly not as useful as Template:Behave. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Dan | talk 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we have to approach vandalism on a case-by-case basis. Djegan 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Warning messages shouldn't presuppose that a user is familiar with a particular television show or other cultural reference. —Psychonaut 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. I've never heard of "Father Ted", and the template seems silly, but if it reduces the vandalism from UK school IPs by even 1%, hell, keep it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:18, Dec. 15, 2005
• Weak delete ditto Jifish Borisblue 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe it does need revision to be effective on US vandals, but it works as an escalation against those who have already been warned. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm all for more humorous and relaxed vandalism responses, but this template is clearly a failed experiment in this area. It comes across more like an old, out-of-the-loop disciplinarian trying (and failing) to be "cool" and "hip" by misusing pop culture references, than as a genuinely layed-back and entertaining comment. People who aren't fans of the show (i.e. the vast majority of Wikipedia vandals, regardless of its popularity) will just be thoroughly confused ("Father Ted? Is this some sort of weird Wikipedia thing?") and annoyed, and people who are fans of the show will just roll their eyes at how blatant and uncleverly-worded the text is (going out of your way to define the show's terminology is like going out of your way to explain a joke; it diffuses all potential humor from the situation). Anyone who wants to use this message can easily just copy it into any usertalk page he wants to use it on, but it shouldn't be a Wikipedia template unless it's a vandalism-response that's actually of some use. -Silence 14:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Silence above. Thanks/wangi 14:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This completely fails to encourage taking Wikipedia "seriously". User:Silence makes his point well. EldKatt (Talk) 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy. To have this in the main namespace is silly by itself.  Grue  17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Weak delete. Iff kept, restrict its use to the user pages of UK & Irish vandals. ^BlankVerse 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not a helpful talk message. Ashibaka tock 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (with option to Userfy). I appreciate the effort, but it's rather too ideosyncractic for general use. Feel free to keep using it yourself, though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not helpful. --Carnildo 01:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to Userspace. I've seen the show on late night Public Broadcasting, but otherwise would have no idea. I would never use it, but I think it may be applicable in some instances and should be moved to the userspace. -Scm83x 07:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - wholly uncommunicative, and jokiness is not the message we want to send to vandals. Phil Sandifer 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jtdirl. Go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on... the wub "?!" 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Endspoiler

Unnecessary clutter; not particularly useful. — Dan | talk 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful for demarcating spoiler text that doesn't end at the end of an article or section. android79 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - useful if someone wants to mark a specific part of an entry as a spoiler. Without this, if a spoiler warning is put up, people reading may skip the rest of the article not knowing whether the spoilers are a single paragraph, or go right to the end. -- VederJuda 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per VederJuda. --OGoncho 00:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Highly usefl IMO. Strong Keep as per both keep comments above. DES ^(talk) 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Useful template. Hbdragon88 06:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, quite useful. —Brent Dax 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also consider that a javascript/css implementation can be added to actually hide the text, if desired. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 06:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and written the javascript. There's probably a more efficient way to do it, but this works. —Cryptic (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per VederJuda and Android79. While it remains generally obscured in use, it's still useful in indicating remaining article contents that are not spoilers. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) ╫
• Keep until Wikipedia removes spoiler warnings altogether. Useful. -Silence 08:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I use it when the article is long and when it is difficult to say on first glance, where the spoilers end. --Gurubrahma 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It is useful for articles where spoilers end somewhere in the middle of an article. Wolf ODonnell 11:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per all of the above. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Maybe we can close this TfD already? It's obvious where this is going. Everyone thinks it should be kept! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - If this is so useless, why did I come to the TfD page through this template's use on several pages? Staxringold 12:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - An excellent template for use in fiction-related articles. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Additional thought: I suspect that having this template would be very useful if somebody were to use Javascript to hide the spoiler area. — DLJessup (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's very useful when people might miss out on useful information because they're afraid it might have spoilers. gtdp 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Y'know, just about everyone else has already said what I think about it. --Yar Kramer 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Keep per anyone who has voted. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I removed the TfD notice because this is really obvious by now. (Sorry for being a bit bold.) Ashibaka tock 22:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ditto --Ezeu 07:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Behave

Ugly; puerile; redundant with the test templates. — Dan | talk 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Good for not making anyone angry - defuses situation. Besides, I think it looks quite nice :-) --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - IMO, "ooh, behave" usually conveys (at best) a mixed message in the movies. Maybe it's a cultural difference, I don't know. But I don't see this as especially effective for the average high-school vandal. Instead, it's just cute. FreplySpang (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  Striking my vote after seeing Ashibaka's edits. Thanks, Ashibaka. I'm okay with the current wording. FreplySpang (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, if that's the way it's going to be, just delete the thing. FreplySpang (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I've seen this used a few times, and each time it was completely ignored. The standard warnings serve fine for vandals; either they'll stop after a warning message or they'll ignore everything. android79 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep was created as a tongue-in-cheek way of dealing with light vandalism where a heavy warning was merely likely to drive a new user away. It and the rest in the series are intended to be a lighthearted way of asking people to stop doing stupid things. Has been used in that context and worked in all cases. It and all the other templates that exist deal with specific problems that the test templates are unsuited to handling. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think that this is more appropriate than the incomprehensable {{test}} template for dealing with humorous noob tests (I would advocate changing the colour though). Izehar (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How is "Hey, stop that" incomprehensible? android79 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • {{test}} doesn't say that though, does it? Do you know that I've been asked what that message means. Unless someone's actually testing (that's rare - in most cases they're just vandalising), it means nothing to them. Izehar (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's obviously not a user test, then start with {{test2}}. android79 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It's too harsh for a first time vandal. Izehar (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Curt, maybe, but harsh? It even uses "Please" and "thank you". android79 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
            • How about severe? Izehar (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The more formal warning just riles people up. - Xed 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I like the more gentle and informal wording, and the smiley. I also support putting an Hieronymus Bosch cartoon on {{test5}} -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a good way to get a point across that this is an encyclopedia and not a playground. Prsgoddess187 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep can't do any harm. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless, see above. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete indicative of WP:BEANS. --Gurubrahma 07:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How does this template indicate Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose? Using this template does not promote making jokes on Wikipedia, but disparages using the encyclopedia for humor. Sycthos^Talk 23:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Variations of the old stereotype test1 and test2 templates are useful. People get bored with those, and this one looks pretty cute and friendly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - gives vandals the impression that their work is funny.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Doctor10. Especially in light of the recent bad press, we don't need to be coddling vandals or newbies who couldn't be bothered to learn the rules first. Kafziel 14:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So how can that be reconciled with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? There are certain cases where {{test}} is inappropriate. Izehar (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If {{test}} is inappropriate, then nothing needs to be said at all. If it is the clear case of an honest mistake, the article can be reverted without further comment. If the same user does the same sort of thing more than once or twice, then he or she has moved on into vandalism. We all started here as newbies at one point or another; we didn't all go around messing up articles at random. Kafziel 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{test} is appropriate when the vandal/newbie made a test. It if was clearly simple vandalism ("Tom loves Sally" kind of thing), then it means nothing to them. I don't know if you've ever been on RC Patrol, but they don't understand it. I've even been asked what it meant. Izehar (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what? I don't care anymore. I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote.

• Delete, I don't understand it. Do they vandalise wiki's in movies? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we have to approach vandalism on a case-by-case basis. Djegan 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep I'll start using this on RC patrol... good templateBorisblue 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - {{test2}} works fine, and is not too harsh for obvious vandalism. Mike5904 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I loved this the moment I saw it. It's perfect for RC patrolling in the 1500-2000 UTC weekday time when all the schoolkids are doing their silly vandalisms; it works. They stop, they don't get mad and leave obscenities on user pages, it's effective. Antandrus (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't use this one too often, but it does work well on certain kinds of vandals. It might need some tweaks, but definitely not a deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or completely redesign. A Wikipedia vandalism-response box should not sound like a 50-year-old's attempts to seduce a teen. The entire tone of the box suggests "THIS IS AN AWARD FOR YOUR DOING GREAT! KEEP IT UP!", smiley face and coy tone and all, not the polite and welcoming but stern information it should have. I also agree that the current alternatives suck just as much. No wonder we have so many vandals, if all of our boxes are so absurd. -Silence 14:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the redesigned version. Greatly improved, just about all the problems I had with the box are fixed now. Even the tone is better: stern, yet friendly. Good job, Ashibaka. -Silence 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• But on the other hand, now that the "behave" catchphrase has been completely removed from the template (thank god), the template's name doesn't really having anything to do with its content, and may actually counteract the efforts of those who use it (i.e. a vandal is calmed down by the text, but then sees that the template is called "behave" and gets annoyed at the condescending word). So, I'm switching back to Delete, but move the current template to a new, more fitting name, since I actually like it and it will probably be quite useful to vandal-greeters. -Silence 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This completely fails to encourage taking Wikipedia "seriously". If there are indeed cases of "vandalism" where anything less light-hearted than this would be "too harsh", then consider whether it requires any response at all. I suspect not. EldKatt (Talk) 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and usrfy, silly.  Grue  17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, but I think it needs some rewording, and something better than that stupid happy face graphic. ^BlankVerse 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rewrote to be less silly and more helpful. Ashibaka tock 22:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your excellent improvements have been reverted, so my above comments (after the first one, which still very much applies) are moot regarding the template. As such, strong delete; template will dramatically increase, rather than decrease, the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia. -Silence 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The 'changes' were rubbish. They completely misunderstood the whole point of the template and undermined its effectiveness. As to the suggestion that it would increase the amount of vandalism, obviously you don't spend your time dealing with vandalism. If you did you'd realise how nonsensical the claim is. It is specifically targeted at a type of lightweight vandalism and is designed in those cases to say "very funny, but please don't." Where it has been used in those cases it has worked. It is not intended to be used for real heavy vandalism. You don't seem to understand the different types of vandalism and the different tones that need to be used in dealing with them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In case you didn't notice, when the template is reverted to your version people vote delete (see below). When I edited it a bit, one of the editors who noticed changed his vote to keep (see above). If you want this to be "your" template, userfy it! Ashibaka tock 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Your version is poorly designed, badly laid out and amateurish. If you want to create substandard templates, create them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • In that case I will change my vote. Ashibaka tock 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Gerard Foley 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mirth is an ineffective way of saying "stop joking." Phil Sandifer 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently there is no hope of improving this. Ashibaka tock 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the original/current version. Keep Ashibaka's superior rewording (but encyclopaedia should not be arbitrarily changed to encyclopedia).—jiy (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I would vote "keep" if it was reworded to that alternate version by Ashibaka. That is a huge improvement over the current wording. (I do think it should be spelled "encyclopedia", though - this is Wikipedia, not Wikipaedia, after all. But that's neither here nor there.) Kafziel 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In order to prevent further revert warrings, I forked my version into {{joke}} (which makes sense since my version has nothing to do with "Oh, behave!"). As Jtdirl wants people to vote on the version he made, don't be reluctant! Ashibaka tock 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - IMO, it's good for first time, silly edits. If it doesn't work, then move on to more harsh templates. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since this has been an effective template to deal with those immature vandals who add inappropriate text or enigmatic nonsense to Wikipedia articles. This is not redundant, as this template serves its specific purpose quite well. Sycthos^Talk 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless enough, and some editors find it a good first reminder prior to outright vandalism warnings. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent friendly warning for silly behaviour.Palmiro | Talk 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Jtdirl and above. I can think of quite a few times over the past few years on Wikipedia when I would have used this template had it existed. 172 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Routeboxint

I've been in a bit of a revert war on Interstate 76 (east) about this template (see [3] for its use). I have taken it here as suggested on IRC:

<DavidGerard> KILL IT WITH A STICK. <DavidGerard> that one should go to TFD as a complete eyesore.

I have created an alternate template, currently on Interstate 76 (east) (and on Talk:Interstate 76 (east) if it's reverted again), that includes much of the information with less space, and does not include the huge junction box (which only duplicates information in the exit list further down in the article). A long Interstate can be split into multiple articles like Interstate 80 in New Jersey to keep the size of the article, including the exit list, manageable. --SPUI (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Having twelve articles for I-80 is a very bad idea indeed, as I-80 spans CA, NV, UT, WY, NE, IA, IL, IL, OH, PA, NJ, and NY. When this fragmentation idea is extended to all inter-state interstates, there would be an explosion of little snippets that have no cohesion. The whole point of focusing on the inter-state identity of an interstate (especially the two-digit ones) is to show the regional or national interconnectivity of that road. The purpose of an interstate is to connect traffic flow without regard to the rather arbitrary/antiquated/historically-accidental state lines (or county lines). The purpose of an article for an interstate should be to focus on this national/regional aspect of interstates, not on some local's love-romance with how I-80 in the NYC suburbs in NJ is truly the most special and emotionally dear thing in some fan's life or whether the 17 mile stretch of I-29 in North Dakota was first in the nation to test the such-and-such road experimental pavement. The interstate articles should be focused on the user of that interstate to accomplish a traversal of that interstate (e.g., route planning of which that interstate is merely a portion of the route), not for heaping on some local's praise of his/her section. Sectionalism of interstates should be at best eradicated and at worst de-emphasized. Use of the interstate should be emphasized in the article for that interstate. — optikos 02:56 18 December 2005
  • Furthermore, if such a fragmentation of an interstate article would be pursued, be prepared for someone from Chicagoland to request that the I-80 freeway has an entirely different personality & word-name & toll-payment & governmental ownership than the I-294/I-80 concurrency, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name & governmental ownership than the I-80/I-94 concurrent freeway, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-90 concurrent toll-road, but I-94 (the Dan Ryan) has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-94 concurrency. Be prepared to shatter I-80 into those tiny little articles too. This is further proof that shattering an interstate article into how the locals romance it is unwise, because it is a slippery slope that might have no end. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
• Keep, or fork/split into a "slimmer, trimmer" version. I agree fields are underused in current template, but there really is no happy medium between listing every intersection (I really don't want to do that) and listing bigger junctions (which is what the junction box is there for) except a table. Tables in the current template look more concise. I can do without "Browse State Highways". This particular template wielded properly isn't an eyesore. --Rob 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why we need to list any intersections in the infobox. This information is already in text in the route description and in a table in the exit list; scrolling through the exit list makes it easy to find Interstate junctions (as they're shown with shields). --SPUI (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea of an infobox isn't to contain unique information. Most city infoboxes, for example, contain population and other info that is in the body of the article. The idea is create a concise overview of the interstate highway for people who just want the information quickly. The suggested replacement only contains the endpoints, the establishment date, and the useless links to the adjacent state highways in numerical order. I wouldn't mind if the state highways part were deleted from the template but the rest of routeboxint is fine. Listing the Interstate junctions provides a first level look at the important junctions. The detailed intersection tables are fine, but are a lot to go through for a quick scan. It will be even more cumbersome if all of the intersections, Interstate and state highway, for a coast-to-coast Interstate go onto the main page, or if it is necessary to go to a page for each state to see the Interstate junctions. --Beirne 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. First of all as the template's creator I'm wondering why I wasn't informed of it's TFD. To continue, it has been accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways as well as other roadgeeks. The templates look good and can be shrunken if needed. Interstate 5, Interstate 90, etc. There is much more information packed into this template than in the othertemplate proposed at Talk:Interstate 76 (east). Also, the browse state highways should stay because it is needed for the CA, WA, KY, NH, TX, OH, PA, NJ Interstates so their routeboxes can connect with the individual state routeboxes/ other templates (Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways explains why) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Shrink the damn thing if you don't kill it with a stick. It was three screens long on my laptop - David Gerard 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So what? Is page length a fossil fuel that must be conserved lest we run out? optikos 14:35 18 December 2005
• Keep, but shrink it. It's too wide, and far too long. Something I just recently noticed is the color scheme is sort of ugly. As for the SPUI one, it first of all must be discussed someplace other than here and there. My biggest problem is that any Interstate that goes through three states will be 1/2 taken up by those stupid state highway browsers, which I already hate. I know some of the highway guys like them, but I'd be interested to see what the rest of the Wikipedians think about them. Other than that, I don't have too much of a problem with SPUI's infobox. Maybe just add a bit here or there. However, many articles already use the old one. (In the event of any sort of change, all Routeboxint info that will be lost should be moved to the body of the article.) So therefore, I'm just in favor of cutting down on Template:Routeboxint by doing the following (this should cut it down to a quarter of the original on something like Interstate 84 (east)):
  • Perhaps lower the width.
  • Make interstate junctions much smaller, by limiting the number of junctions (perhaps 5 or so), and by cutting out the milepost column, but perhaps keeping a state abbreviation.
  • Throw away the legend; that sort of detail will be unnecessary in a brief list. A similar legend may be used to color-code the full list in the body of the article.
  • Kill the browse state highways. Perhaps the States Traversed section should link to List of New York state highways or whatever.
  • Remove the seperate east and west terminii sections. Perhaps the brief junction list should include the first, last, and 3 most major in between.

--Chris 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My concern with removing Browse State Highways is that someone on WA-4 can get to I-5... but then how do they get to WA-6? We could split the legend off to a subpage... and I'm not attached to terminii... width needs to be fixed too. If we limit the junctions on the primary interstates to just Primary Interstates, things will be better (we could even cut down more on Interstate 90.) I'll fix Interstate 5 so it does this. If every page had an exit list, I would say throw away the junctions section- but not every page does, so I'm not saying it. But yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

On the state highway box issue, people may make it up to I-5, but I wonder how many people browsing through Washington state highways make it up to I-90? I would suspect that most give up long before that, because there isn't any useful relation between adjacently numbered highways. (And yes, I know north-south, east-west, etc. but the schemes tend to conflict in various ways so it still doesn't work out.) I don't think it makes sense for the projects of states like WA or CA either, although I know that those are different projects out of the scope of this one. The legend probably needs to be there to help interpret the colors if we are going to use them, otherwise we should probably just skip the color-coding altogether because it is going to be too mysterious for most people. I think the terminii are exactly the sort of meaningful pieces of information that should be in the routebox. The provide a visual sense of length, direction, and the route. Every page should have a junction list since a bulleted list is part of the Interstate Project guidelines, but the box provides a convenient overview. Being an overview, though, listing the primaries should be fine and a good compromise. --Beirne 12:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken on the WA-4, I-5, WA-6 thing, but regardless of what each state does, that doesn't mean they need to be in the infobox. (I'm giving up on eliminating them altogether, in favor of compromise.) The legend should at the very least be split off someplace else, but it wouldn't be necessary at all if the junctions list were to be turned into just a brief lists of other interstates it Interchanges with. (as opposed to a list of interchanges with other Interstates; yes there is a difference) If an individual interstate article wishes to use a similar color scheme on it's body interchange list, then obviously the legend can either be in or be linked to in the body. Seperately listing the terminii is uneccsary if the brief junction list is in order. --Chris 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We can't list every single city that for example Interstate 5 goes through. I've changed the routebox on I-5 to be smaller... does it look better? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Shoot. Repeatedly. Big, ugly, and too hard to maintain. --Carnildo 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Patcat88 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to express accuracy Expand the ability to describe east-west/north-south designation on a per-section basis (in one article). Expand the ability to describe established-date on a per-section basis. Neither of these two fields apply to the entire interstate from terminus to terminus for all interstates. Keep the template as is or expand it as I have indicated below. Either way deploy it fully to every interstate without exception. Move factual information that is currently in prose to the template-table's contents to reduce the impact of my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication in the prose of the article. Make all interstate articles have the same look-and-feel, which also will dilute my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • In any interstate template that has an established-date field, what is that date: 1) the date that the oldest section of that roadway was built to interstate specifications opened (even under a different name that was later renamed an interstate, as is common nowadays to build an interstate named as a state-road or US highway then upon completion of the entire route, e.g., I-68 was named US48 for years until the day of its completion at its eastern terminus, I-469 was named Indiana SR469 for years until completion of its northern terminus)? 2) the date that that roadway was first named I-suchandsuch even if it existed twenty years prior to that as a famous freeway? 3) the date that the most recent section of it opened (e.g., it will be misleading to say that I-69 was established in 1967 referring to the oldest part of the Indiana section when it is completed all the way to Mexico one of these next few decades) — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • In any interstate template that has a direction field, the direction often does not apply to the entire length of that interstate. Take I-69 for example. The Indiana section that I lived near as a child is signed as a north-south interstate as one would expect from the odd final digit, but the Michigan section "north" of Lansing is signed as east-west almost as though I-69 is some variation of I-96 (which is what it feels like when driving around Lansing). Conversely, many of the supposedly east-west interstates run either nearly north-south or due north-south in Chicagoland, but are signed as east-west. This leads to much confusion in the Chicagoland area that would be very nice to succintly disclose in a table for I-94 and I-90. Similarly, when driving in a new-to-me metropolitan area, I would love to have any reference Wiki or Rand McNally or otherwise that discloses to me ahead of time which sections/exits of I-465 in Indy or I-410 in San Antonio are signed east-west and which are signed north-south. In all of these cases, having an explicit directionality of signage in the template on a section-by-section basis would be valuable information that is not easily accessible anywhere else other than going the wrong way on the road and then turning around once one figures how the local Dept of Transportion decided to creatively sign this interstate. What would be absolutely perfect would be directionality of signage (e.g., N-S versus E-W) sitting right next to degrees from North from the compass between two exits point-to-point, such as for the Dan Ryan in Chicago: E-W/0°-180°; or for I-69 east of Lansing: E-W/89°-271°. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • Move more factual prose to these template tables, so that information does not get buried in some fan's touting of the verbose praise of how this section is named the Whosywhatsit Memorial Expressway. I have recently visited every interstate article. I have noticed way too much variance from article to article. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • Yes, the Interstate articles are not uniform- one of the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways is to fix that. I'm all for making Interstate articles as comprehensive as possible, but since there is opposition, this is not possible. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a rather useful summary of an interstate highway. That being said, it is way too big. How about placing the legend on a separate page (perhaps a subpage of the WikiProject), and linking to it? And something needs to be done about the "browse state highways" section -- it's attracted way too much criticism. Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a great summary, and I've been wondering why they've been dissapearing. I utilised the core of it for Template:UK motorway routebox and would be mortified if that was TFD'd. Erath 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I suggest some bits be split into different templates. Lots of the things in this don't belong in an infobox, but are still useful in template form. --Golbez 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler MC top

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

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.

Template:Spoiler top and Template:Spoiler bottom

Unlike {{spoiler2}} and {{spoiler-red}}, these used to have a distinct purpose, but they've been obsolesced by the revival and widespread use of {{endspoiler}}. The javascript mentioned on Template talk:Spoiler top doesn't work anymore, but if anyone's really interested, I can fix it for the standard {{spoiler}}/{{spoiler-about}}/{{spoiler-other}}/{{solution}} - {{endspoiler}} series. —Cryptic (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obsolete template. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I guess, but I hope someone who wants to remove these will go through and replace them rather than effectively removing spoiler notices from these articles. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}}, respectively (due to the likelihood that editors will attempt to use their superseded counterparts). —Lifeisunfair 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair. —Slicing (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why do we have spoiler templates anywho? I mean, we're an encyclopedia, not a goddamn fan message board. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Because we're a well-mannered repository of information, not a bunch of curmudgeonly swine who take delight in spoiling people's enjoyment of carefully-constructed serial drama. We want people to come to Wikipedia to look stuff up, not to avoid us like the plague because we incontinently splurge Too Much Information across the page in reply to a simple query. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair. Courtland 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't get the use of spoiler warnings either. What do readers expect when they visit a film page, a summary of the first 30 minutes followed by "Will Jack fall for Emma, or will Mr Robinson's evil plans stand in the way of true love?" Stevage 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair —Phil | Talk 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler-red

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

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I wasn't intending this to be used for main namespace yet, I just wanted to use it as an example on Spoiler talk. Is there a way to move this into user space and still have it work? If not, can you just give me two days so my examples of what I'm talking about in Spoiler talk make sense? Thanks. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK. Userfied to User:Cyde/Spoiler-red. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Maintained

• Delete: Copying my reasoning from the Pump: In effect, the template seems to be saying The following users are watching this page. Please clear any changes with them first. I'd content that the less experienced the editor who reads the template, the more likely they are to interpret it that way. Conversely, more experienced editors are likely to respond with a "So what?" I'd really like to have the purpose of the template explained clearly. Casual vandals are unlikely to read talk pages. The listed users will have the article on their watchlists and will spot and fix vandalism just as quickly without the template. Non-vandals who want to make good-faith edits should not have to refer (or defer) to self-styled experts who, thanks to their watchlists, will soon see any changes anyway.. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Comment: Rather than this knee-jerk reaction to delete, you could have suggested an alternate wording that you thought would not communicate what you feel is a message of "ownership". Instead, you chose not to participate in any discussion and move directly to delete. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:22
• Keep: There should be enough reasons in the last few days to have a necessity for these kind of persons thus implementing something like this in articles at least to make vandals that aren't caught by RC Patrols and else be stopped by this method. Lincher 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. That is NOT the intention of this template at all, and I am really getting tired of explaining this for people who can't bother themselves to read any of the past discussion. The template is acting as a contact list of people who have identified themselves as either knowing the content of the article or knowing its sources. It is for any reader who wants to confirm the facts in an article, or confirm its sources. It has nothing to do with "ownership" of this article, so please stop pushing this ridiculous apocalyptic notion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:14
  • Replying to these three comments. A) I have not used the word "ownership"; please respond to the stated reasons for listing here rather than continuing a previous argument of which I was not part. B) I have not suggested an alternate wording because I believe that there is no need for any such template. and C) Please explain how the template is going to be any more effective against vandalism than having the same group of users add the article to their watchlist. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You were not part of any discussion. You moved directly to delete the template within the very same message that you misrepresented the intention of the template. That has been your only part in the discussion, "I don't like it, so I will move to delete it." It is NOT the intention of this template to be "effective against vandalism". As I have already stated 3 times on different pages (which I'm assuming you've read...), the intention of this template is to do exactly what it says: let the readers know that there are people watching it for vandalism, maintaining it, and who can be contacted regarding any factuality/verifiability concerns the readers have. As I have also repeatedly stated, people tend to check their email more than their watchlist. So, having a direct link to email a useful contact on an article is very useful for the reader. I have already gotten emails from readers and new users verifying with me that arcticles' content is accurate, so it is already working exactly as I had intended. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:37
      • Articles have talk pages were such concerns can be raised in full view of all those with an interest in the article. Can you not at least concede that moving this discussion to the talk pages of individual users is open to potential abuse. I raised the vandalism question because it was part of one of the keep votes. You have raised it again yourself just now ("there are people watching it for vandalism"). Finally, please stop the bolded uppercase shouting, which does nothing to further your arguments. BTW, I check my watchlist far more often than I check my e-mails. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It is not shouting, it is concerned emphasis. Please stop misrepresenting this template on people's talk pages to get them to vote in your favor, calling this template "the latest item of worship." — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:56
• Speedy Keep - Can this thing be ended as soon as possible so the annoying TfD text can go away from the pages the template is used on? Thanks. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Clarifications: This template provides direct contact to email someone, something with which all readers are familiar, rather than assuming that all readers will know what the "history" tab is for, how to check for significant contributors who thus might know something about the article (ie: looking for non-minor, non-bot, significant edits). Besides the contact, one of the main points is to let readers know that the page is being maintained by people, that it is being watched for vandalism, and that some people will hold themselves accountable for its contents. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
• Also note, anyone can remove anyone from the template's list of users, if those users become inactive, since the point is to provide a list of contacts and a list of people who are volunteering their time to protect the article against vandalism and are knowledgeable about its facts/sources. The point is not to provide a list of "contributors". If you feel the template is sending the wrong message, please suggest alternate wordings. This is more productive than typing 7 letters.. (ie "Delete"). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
• Keep. Filiocht is quite right—experienced editors (and even not-so-experienced ones) will happily ignore the template. But it is inteneded primarily to benefit the casual reader, who has no idea how Wikipedia works or how he might go about questioning the veracity of a statement. An obvious "email this person if you have questions" box is quite useful in such cases. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template cruft - the casual reader will figure out, by looking at all the buttons above (That's what I did when I was one). --Gurubrahma 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So you are assuming that all readers will understand the system as easily/quickly as you claim to have. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Keep. Let's see it in action for a bit, give it a chance to improve, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Use it. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Best new idea in a long time. Creating a visable presence on an article is a way to make soft-tiers of users (not unlike the 3-tiers of "anon->user->admin", but on a per-article basis, and "soft-tier") which will add stability and discourage the natural processes of entropy. It's the closest thing to a traditional encyclopedia "signed article" but maintaining the openess of Wikipedia. It certainly does not over-ride the Wikipedia Constitutional rules about "ownership". --Stbalbach 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We must keep the cabal as secret. --Peter McConaughey 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What??? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 15:19
• Keep. The wording on the template may need to be altered so that it can't be misinterpreted as 'ownership' of an article, but overall its a good idea. Agnte 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. —Locke Cole 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources and references should be provided in the article itself. The entire idea of Wikipedia is to judge facts and contributions, not contributors. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course the article should have sources. We're not trying to judge contributors. Even if it lists sources, it can still be vandalized, and readers can still have questions about ambiguities or other things related to the topic. That is why it is important to show that people are watching the content, can be contacted regarding any questions, and do hold themselves accountable for the content. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 19:44
    • If the article is unclear or incomplete, you make it more clear and you complete it. The only way this template would be of any help is if the template said, "The following persons have volunteered to clarify and expand the article if it seems unclear or incomplete. Feel free to share your concerns with them." But then again, isn't that the purpose of a talk page in the first place? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've used this to mark pages that I'm interested in and know a fair bit about, to indicate that I can probably answer or address whatever questions or concerns people might have. Perhaps it should be reworded to say something like "If you have questions about this article or its sources, the following users may be able to help: Example (talk · contribs · email), misterhand43 (talk · contribs · email), Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · email)." Or something like that—the point being to list helpful contacts that someone may not otherwise find, not to indicate any measure of ownership or control. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  I've changed the wording as per this suggestion. Agnte 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and reword as per Mirv, to clarify that no ownership is implied. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Might need some improvement to remove any implication of article "ownership" but I like this template and the ideas behind it. Let's give it a chance to develop. android79 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a good idea. But I agree with android79.algumacoisaqq 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've always thought this feature should be built in to the Mediawiki software. I'm glad I found it.
• Strong keep, per everybody else. Perhaps needs tweaking to alleviate Android's concerns, but otherwise good.--Sean|Black 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Matt Crypto 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No matter how the message is worded, it's going to smack of asserting ownership over an article and discourage others from contributing. Questions about an article should be made on the article's talk page, not directly to the maintainers. —Psychonaut 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please cite the guideline/policy that suggests the statement you just made. I (and I'm sure others) have been contacted multiple times about different articles. The sole purpose isn't simply to act as contact points, though, and your statement that the wording cannot be fixed is baseless. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 23:28
    • The guideline about posting questions and comments on the article talk page is called "common sense". As a collaborative encyclopedia, a reader is far more likely to get a useful response if he posts a public message rather than a private one. To suggest that a reader do otherwise also implies that the editors named on the template have more authority over the article than other editors. —Psychonaut 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • What about the current form of the message? There is no way that your original complaint is true now. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 20:01
• Keep. Jacoplane 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Use of the template subtly implies ownership, even if it is not explicitly worded as such. Sources should be in the body of the article. There should never be a need to contact anyone to verify information; the article should stand on its own. Use of this template will encourage people to not make self-standing articles. Kwertii 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • You are stating a lot of "shoulds", which would be fine, except Wikipedia currently doesn't exist in a perfect state. I am simply acknowledging that, whereas you are hindering its development. An article can be filled with sources, but a reader still has no reason to trust its contents, since the article can easily be vandalized. This template lets them have some trust in the article, or at least contact someone who can verify information presented in the article, information which may not be laid out in any sources (for example, if the article was vandalized). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 00:10
• Possibly reword, but Keep. On the other hand, I'd like clear criteria for its use: it ought to be clear that multiple individuals can place it on the same talk page, and that it shouldn't be placed on highly controversial articles, where the issue of implied "ownership" could be much more serious. For example, I'd be very suspicious of the motives of someone who unilaterally claimed to be "maintaining" Libertarianism or Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a great idea and long overdue. If you don't like the wording in the template, then build a consensus for changing it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Jmabel about avoiding it on controversial topics, but its use on most articles is undoubtedly a good idea. Brisvegas 09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - per Kwertii. Also, any question someone might ask these editors is far better placed on the talk page, where everbody can see it (and profit from the answer). The argument that this is mostly to help newcomers who aren't familiar with Wiki isn't convincing to me: The template is supposed to go on the talk page, right? So if a newcomer figures out how to read the talk page, I'm sure they will figure out how to post their question there. Plus, I personally too check my watchlist far more often then my e-mails. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are multiple benefits of this template. You have only addressed one of those, ignoring the rest. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete readers do not want to see the nicknames of the editors - it totally ruins the image of the "serious encyclopaedia". Izehar (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On what is this claim based? Nobody has to edit the article to add their name to the list of knowledgeable people. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Keep this template might need some minor word revisions, but the idea behind it is good, and its meant mainly to show who knows the most about the article. Magicmonster 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think I like the idea behind this. It gives people an idea of who to ask if they need help working on an article, and moreover lets people know who to turn to if they encounter something that they don't think should be there.

--Vortex 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. See how the experiment works. If it's a flop, it's easy to delete later. Hal Jespersen 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Hal Jespersen. I would like to see how this develops, and if it becomes a problem, I'll happily delete it myself. – ClockworkSoul 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, could be quite useful. Alphax ^τεχ 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per previous supporters of this template. I like it and intend to use it myself on articles I've created or made major contributions to. -- Cjmarsicano 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons well-stated above by others. I see no harm. Let's see of the experiment works Vaoverland 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Ok, first, I see very little advantage to it compared to the history tab and watchlists from active editors. However, I think that it exposes us to some dangers. First, it implies an expert status to some editors, whether that is the intent or not. Second, it suggests some form of ownership of an article, that an article is a particular editor's playground or fenced in yard, although that is probably not the intent of the creator. Finally, if we use the template strictly as the author does intend, to indicate an emergency contact number, as it were, on the vandal playgrounds, there would be a creeping suggestion that all articles need such angels, such protectors, and such ministers and advocates. So, I see three reasons why this template does "harm" and no distinct harm that it cures. Rather than saying, "Please don't use this template," I have to say delete, because I think we would need to demonstrate an acute need and prove that this template is a wholly satisfactory curing of that need before we should willingly face the three dangers I list above. Geogre 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of advantages to it. For one, if there's a sign that says someone is watching over the article, it means two things: One is that either a vandal's desire to vandalize could be deterred, or quickly reverted. The other is that a more civilized user wishing to contribute to or correct an article can do so in the knowledge that there's at least one person other himself concerned enough with the topic to wish to maintain it, and can do so without worry. So, it seems to me that whatever objections you have to the template pale in comparison to how mcuh good this template could do. --Cjmarsicano 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Following your logic, vandals will then eagerly vandalize pages without the notice, because they think no one is watching them. Maybe we need a general notice on all pages stating that users are watching every page. The current template which names names and excludes other users has too many negative effects, and too few positive ones. -- Rmrfstar 02:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is not to deter vandals. The point is to let readers know we are protecting the article against vandals. 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched, so it will be fairly easy for vandals to find unwatched pages. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:13

• Delete - remind me what is the point of the talk page again... If someone has a question regarding an article then that can be left on the article's talk page. Moving this flow of information off to user talk pages sounds counter-ituitive to me and only serves to setup cliques. Thanks/wangi 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
• Delete useless: duplicates already existing functionality (history/talk).  Grue  17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have only addressed one of its benefits. There are several, and they combine to make this template better than any individual other item. That's why it is necessary. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
• Strong Keep This is extremely helpful when you have a question to ask about some statement made in an article, but nobody is reading the Talk page anymore. Remember, this is a huge encyclopedia, and people might miss important edits on their watchlist. It's totally harmless and does not claim ownership over anything. Ashibaka tock 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This template appears to have been made just a few days ago, on the 13th of December 2005. It adds articles to the Maintained articles category, also created around the same time. I note that there appear to be at least 141 articles which are now in that category. While I did not check each one, I did check a few, and each has the template, and I saw at least 5 different editors listed as a contact for that article, that is, that multiple editors chose to add the template. I therefore conclude that this template serves a need, and is already being adopted and has the potential to be in widespread use. Note also that as other editors have commented, non wikipedians may not be familiar with the mechanics of looking up article history to determine who a good contact person might be. I do think that refinement of the wording to clarify that it's a person that wants to be helpful, not an "owner", that is being listed, might still be in order (although I note people have already been working on it), but that is not an argument for Delete. NB, I am inclusionist. ++Lar 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, attempts at ownership of articles are a direct and egtregious violation of Wikiquette. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Please do not voice your disapproval of the template by deleting it from talk pages. See Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature. --Stbalbach 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a clear case of WP:POINT. Hey Zoe, how about waiting for this TfD to finish before removing it from pages? —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's nothing of the sort. WP:POINT specifically means doing something you don't actually advocate to make a point; it doesn't mean someone doing something someone else doesn't like - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You'll be needing to point me to the part of this template that claims ownership over articles. —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It labels it with names - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So, you've violated guidelines to correct what you believe are "violations of guidelines". Interesting... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 08:27
    • Guidelines versus policy ... which will win? Oh yes, consensus! - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, why do you say that's POINT instead of BOLD? After all, we're to be bold in editing. Now, what if there is a topic of controversy. I'm working on, let's say, Oroonoko, and someone has a contrary point of view. That person slaps on the Maintained template and proclaims herself the patroller of Oroonoko. I can't remove it? I can't say, "This person doesn't actually understand Aphra Behn and certainly doesn't understand this novel?" Instead, I (if I were less known to the community) would be the presumed intruder. I would have to justify to everyone around that I do know the subject, that I am a scholar of Restoration and Augustan literature? All because someone with a controversial view slapped on a template? We don't have to wait for hypothetical harms: these comments show that it is already occurring. Second case: someone puts the maintained template on Oroonoko and lists me. I don't want to be contacted. I'll fix the article any time people mess it up, but I don't want to chat with every college freshman assigned the novel in a class who wants me to write his paper for him. I don't want the members of the Aphra Behn Society asking me my real name so that they can chat with me or bother me at the next conference. Too bad, eh? I either have to be a second rate voice on the article, or I have to be Mr. Sociable, and all because this template says so? Geogre 13:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I added a guideline for that to the template's talk page. See how productive work is accomplished? If you think that guideline is not good enough, please, suggest another! This is much more productive than just assuming that the template will only be placed on controversial articles and that it therefore should not exist. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 14:29
  • How about an indication that there must be consensus on a talk page for the list of patrollers before the template can be used? That way, if I see that I am listed, I have to agree to it, and if I see that someone with a fancy for an article but not expertise has become annointed, I can object. At least that would forestall this set of harms. It doesn't change my view, however. I think we have more templates than users can even find, much less use, and I think this one accomplishes few benefits while exposing us to damage. However, a requirement of consensus would prevent this being used as a weapon in an RFC or its being used to promote a controversialist's campaign. Geogre 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this template encourages people to be more responsible for certain articles and also gives some increased sense of verification to those articles that are more likely to be accurate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not totally sold on this as a great idea, but like many above I think it's worth continuing the experiment for a while. I certainly wish users would stop --pending the outcome of consensus-seeking discussions such as this-- the petulant deletions of these templates where they have been used. It's really contemptuous. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have not used this template myself; it being brand new, most editors presumably have never heard of it. But it seems like a possibly useful concept, one that I can imagine using myself. Allowing editors to volunteer themselves as resources for particular pages might often be useful; and is not the same as imposing a requirement to get permission for edits. Give it a chance! If this is around and non-productive for six months, renominate it. But don't kill the idea after a week. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I originally liked the idea of using this template, but I see now that I was only giving in to satisfy my feelings of ownership of a few articles. Nevermind that. There are very few good effects of this template. Posting a comment on a talk page doesn't need to be any easier and discussion of an article should be kept on Wikipedia for everyone to read, for obvious reasons. Also, as was said above, the articles should be completely (within Wikipedia) stand-alone, such a template encourages and expresses the idea that an article can be confusing, or incomplete etc. and that a reader can email a contributor if they have any questions. -- Rmrfstar 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have ignored all the benefits of the template. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete as gross policy violation - connotes ownership of the article, however it may have been intended. I've kludged onto it that it does not connote such, but it still needs to die - David Gerard 19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Current version rates a neutral - I'm still not sure it's a good idea at all, but it doesn't make me want to shoot it - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is nonsenseible. You said yourself that the wording just needs to be changed. But, instead, you'd rather delete it? Without even giving it a chance? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 19:27
    • Changed to neutral after discussion and new version - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However sugarcoated the words, it is a disinvitation to those not in the club to edit the article. In order to view the template, the user must navigate to the talk page anyway--interested editors can watch the talk page, which is how I've gotten "in touch" with the editors of specific articles in the past. Whatever marginal benefit emailing individual users about article content has (and since when was that such a great idea?) it is countered by putting this perimeter around articles. Note: this disinvitation is inherent in the very idea of making a list of editors, so for me it's not a matter of "fixing the wording". Demi ^T/_C 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a list of editors. Nobody needs to add a single word to the article to be able to add themselves to the template. It is only recommended that they have knowledge of the contents, for the template to be useful, since that is the point of the template: to be useful to readers. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:42
• Neutral although I respect the reasoning behind the deletion votes, some template like this may be suitable for topics where popular understanding and serious scholarship may be at odds. Such articles may have unsuitably long talk pages. Well intentioned readers sometimes insert information in the belief that some omission is an oversight (for example, by adding "January 6" to [[Joan of Arc|Joan of Arc's] birthdate). Sometimes a notion gains a popular following even though the academic community rejects it unanimously. See scalping. The problem with this template is its potential for abuse by partisan editors. Durova 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep we needed a template like this. QQ 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Filiocht had it right all the way up there, and Geogre makes some good points too. "Active monitors" ought to be obvious from the talk page anyway, and will have it on their watchlist. If people want to know about sources or anything else, they can leave a query on the talk page. The template doesn't need tweaking, it needs to be disposed of. --ajn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several, and they combine to make it better than any one thing currently offerred. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete - Geogre has very persuasively demonstrated the potential problems that could arise with this template. Worldtraveller 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • His criticisms were of an older version of the template. Can you please look at the new version??? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Of course there can be problems, but that's why there are guidelines, which the community can add to. Why trash the whole thing when several people obviously think it useful? Please assume good faith, I am in no way trying to take ownership of an article. Have you seen the new version of the template? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 02:42
    • It is possible to assume that your every intention is aboveboard, forthright, well-meaning, and completely without guile or malice, while still believing that you are wrong. Nothing about the former precludes the latter. Nothing about the latter indicates an abandonment of the former. Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has the potential to create more problems than it solves. Zocky 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So you won't even give it chance? You'd rather delete it for its "potential problems", than try to fix those problems? They call this a "discussion" at the top of the page. It really is a joke. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 05:24
• Delete - no benefit - articles should stand on their own - if they need sources or clarification, add them, don't list yourself as a "maintainer"(i.e. according to FOLDOC: "The person responsible for coordinating changes"); discussion about articles should be publically viewable on the wiki, not in private, non-archived, hidden discussion via email. This is a basic violation of the transparency of Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Please be aware that the TfD notice for this template has been removed, subtly hidden in "noinclude" tags (so it will appear to people checking it directly that it has the notice, but will fail in it's intended purpose of publicizing the discussion) and made effectivly unreadable (via a application of "small" tags to the already very small text) multiple times. (I only reverted the "small" trick just now; otherwise, it has been in place the whole time this TfD has been running - if that's not abuse of the process, I'm not sure what it is.) Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 3, part 2. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Im not defending the use of small fonts in this case and had no part in it, but small fonts are used all over Wikipedia in official and unofficial capacity, to say it was "hidden" and made unreadable is an inaccurate portrayal.--Stbalbach 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Making it small was just an attempt to make it less annoying, since others were complaining. Maybe the TFD folks could bother to improve the notice's appearance. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:57
• Keep. This template is a novel idea. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'd like to use it. Right now I have a hacked up list of interests. I like how User:Jacoplane has his stuff organized instead. <>< tbc 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete History/talk/watchlist/community collaboration pages is enough IMHO. Assuming that "more people read their email than the watchlists" is wrong in my case at least --- when I get an email from the Wikipedia, I will usually perceive this as a "push" attempt to make me deal with some WP issues when I have my daytime activities pressure on me for doing other things (yes, I know that I can autosort them all into a special folder). The watchlist is a "pull" interface, which I may prefer to use whenever I like. Also, the template usage can easily become stale and mislead others (making them think --- well, if it's maintained, I shouldn't bother reviewing the changes too hard)... I do see the benefits for some of the users as stated by them, but personally I feel the negative arguments outweigh them. For the active supporters of either delete or keep, please don't jump the decision and don't abuse the process (removing the TfD from pages/the small font trick/whatever). BACbKA 10:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You've only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several. They combine to make this template better than any one thing currently available. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
• Delete, per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The nominator was complaining about an older version of this template. Have you even looked at the changes that have been made? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
• Delete - even with new wording, it still strongly conveys an assertion of ownership or, at the least, an assertion that some editors are more equal than others (with no guarantee, as they are self-appointed, that they are genuinely worth contacting regarding verification or sources). What if a POV warrior applies this tag? Tearlach 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - To find notable contributors look at the history instead. Connotates ownership/elitism. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this does not imply ownership, merely that stated user is an expert in this field.  ALKIVAR™ 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment And how do we know that's true? Tearlach 00:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

template:Vwatched

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

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

Surely you realize that GWB will still have to be proteted from vandalism when it gets out of control, completely regardless of whether the tag is here. There is no "other option", this is just a poorly-thought-out and meaningless overlabeling that will in the end only cause more vandalisms and subsequent page protections for every article that ever uses it, GWB included. -Silence 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I think this will actually encourage vandals, while distracting readers, hopefully these situations will get resolved by the proposed Semi Protection Policy. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Silence. Alai 06:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, along with template:Maintained. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Psychonaut. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. RIDDLE TIME!! You have two pristine picture windows in stores on opposite sides of the street. One picture window has a big sign on it saying, "Do not throw glass through this window." Which gets broken first? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vandalism is frustrating always but we don't give certain articles special status. In fact, vandalism to high profile articles might be preferable to vandalism to obscure articles since it is reverted faster and more surely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No ugly box templates should be permanent. In addition, it is incorrect, as I have never seen an admin apply a "one bit of vandalism, you're blocked" concept. [[Sam Korn]] 13:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BEANS. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep iff it is used only on talk pages. Otherwise, delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (creator): Consensus is clearly against the template; as the creator, I don't oppose speedy deletion at this point. // Pathoschild 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:BEANS. Alphax ^τεχ 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have Speedy deleted it(and it's asociated category) on request of the author(see above). We can close this now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television 3

Delete, not used _→AzaToth 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Aza Ashibaka tock 00:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

December 13

Template:XD6

Experimental deletion is not an approved Wikipedia process, and implementation of it is not appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of the ever increasing crap on WP, this is a GOOD IDEA (probably one of the best). I just found it, but now your telling me not to use it!! Weird!--Light current 23:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking of Wikipedia content is not an acceptable method of getting articles deleted. The CSD and AfD processes are the only methods approved by Wikipedia consensus. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as long as Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is actively debated. Interesting experimental project that doesn't seem to harm Wikipedia, and might currently even take work away from AfD for pages that are kept and expanded because of the use of this template. Kusma (討論) 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• strong delete as per nom. Debate all you like, don't try to use without consensus. DES ^(talk) 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no reason to debate deleting only this template, and deleting it independently of consensus at Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is probably a waste of time. So long as that project is ongoing, the template needs to exist so that it can be discussed. Deleting it now is less removal of a template and more commentary on that project. I think it's a bit inappropriate to pull their template out from under them, so long as it's not being used inappropriately. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But is is being used inappropriately. it is being used on actual articles, therby blanking them, which is a form of vandalism. Look at the histroy of Kathal, Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, Quelt, Selita Ebanks, Astonish, and Wind Blossom for a start. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is ridiculous. one out of 5 templates? please discuss on the talk page of WP:XD. I consider this a direct slap in the face, unappreciated. had you actually used the template, this would all be over by now. apologies for initial harsh reaction. ∴ here…♠ 06:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Use of this template is a violation of Wikipedia consensus, and will be reverted when encountered. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
    • I disagree, and have solicited continuation of this conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Experimental_Deletion#XD_and_consensus. ∴ here…♠ 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful project for experimentation, generating some good ideas. On the whole, not damaging. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment If the XD project made it a project policy not to use this template on actual articles until and unless XD recieves community consensus support, I would not object to the existance of this template and similar oence for discussion and testing (although they might better live in project space). But it is being used on actual articels at the moment, and that amounts to blanking vandalism in effect if not in intent. See the histroy of Kathal, Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, Quelt, Selita Ebanks, Astonish, and Wind Blossom for recent exampels of use. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • replied on User_talk:DESiegel#WP:XD_issues. ∴ here…♠ 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Copied thread back here DES ^(talk) 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Does the fact that the use of {{XD6}} in each of these cases saved significant work for wikipedians mean anything to you? What about the fact that absolutely no information was lost, but rather was easily kept and expanded? Furthermore, no admin interaction was at all necessary. Again, how is using xd6 different from removing a potentially disputed paragraph from an existing article? ∴ here…♠ 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Blanking an entire article is generally considerd an unacceptable form of edit, and this is what the use of {{XD6}} involved at least in all cases I saw. And it didn't save work, all it did was delay that work and push it off on others -- in this case on me, when i took the proper actions on 6 articles, listing a couple on AfD, expanding and fixing a couple, etc. Still looks like blanking vandalism to me, albiet propably well intentioned balnking. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would add thatr removign an entire paragraph without discussion on a talk page is often frowned upon, but I maintain that the analogy is too flawed to be useful. DES ^(talk) 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - by definition, edits in good faith are not vandalism - this project is very upfront about what it's doine - nothing is hidden - nothing is lost - if anyone objects to the use of the template on a particular page, they simply revert and that's that - so where is the harm? - this is an encyclopedia, not a bureauracracy Tedernst | talk 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't care whether this is kept or not, but please stop putting this and {{XD7}} into Category:Pages for deletion. Experimental deletion thingies are all fine and dandy, but not if they break the non-experimental method. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These templates are an important part of deletion reform. How will other methods become approved by Wikipedia consensus if we don't try them? rspeer 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Subst:NPOV and Template:Subst:Prettytable

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

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

• I have speedy-deleted Template:Subst:NPOV as patent nonsense. DES ^(talk) 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• If I recall correctly, Prettytable is the name of a CSS class in MediaWiki, so it is no longer needed. Delete, preferably speedily if someone feels like ignoring rules. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 23:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per CSD G1 and/or CSD G2 (and or perhaps CSD G7 (§2) per anon only creator (bend the rules)) (anon created, only user) _→AzaToth 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. We can close this now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pittsburgh Universities

Delete: Cumbersome; Better served by Category:Universities and colleges in Pittsburgh 141.151.176.253 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now; it's not better served by the category because the template is not organized alphabetically. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep much more useful than a Category. JG of Borg 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the category could be broken into three subcats to mirror the functionality of this eyesore. Phil Sandifer 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Aren't templates like this the only reason categories exist? -Silence 19:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:FFII

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

• Delete not used in articles anymore. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as now pointless, with most links going to the same page. Kusma (討論) 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons mentioned above. warpedmirror (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

December 12

Template:GFW

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

• Delete. Completely useless. -- Dpark 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• The history said "translated from Chinese", so I guess this comes from zh:Template:BlockByGFW, which is used in "External links" sections to warn that some links might be inaccessible to mainland readers due to censorship (and links to proxy server etc. so people learn how to possibly evade the block). Even assuming that that is the intent, I don't think we need this here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think it actually means that PRC people may not be able to view the article, rather than saying that they aren't allowed to view the article. I'll change the wording to make it more clear. Borisblue 07:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  Wait a minute, how are Chinese users going to see this template if the article is blocked? D'oh. Striked out keep vote. Borisblue 07:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, some discussion at zhwiki about the template. This template is useful to notify readers and editors that not everyone can view it, and if possible, prevent to use some "keyword" filtered by the Great Firewall to prevent to blocking. This is not "commanding the people from..." — Yaohua2000 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dubious whether this can be very accurately placed, and pretty useless regardless. Lord Bob 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. My insecure self think that this is more of a "hey eat this ChiCom, we're gonna announce to the world how evil you are" template than a truly informative one. People blocked by the GFW won't be able to see this template at all, and those who can prove this template wrong. Also, the GFW blocks the entire wikimedia site and all its sister sites (and I must imagine all the leechers too) so there doesn't exist a solution of not using certain "keywords" to bypass the GFW. If this template should survive deletion it should be pasted without fail to every single nook and cranny of Wikipedia. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: That sounds funny. But it is technically incorrect. Because Chinese government only block those wikimedia server in Korea, wikimedia DNS replies the IP of Korea server to those users in China, so people are not able to view wikimedia site. But if a user modify his DNS configuration, add some custom lines to /etc/hosts and redirect all requests to Korean servers to those servers in North America or Europe, it will be bypass the blocking. You can whois my current IP, it is from mainland China. This is so called third blocking of Wikipedia from China. But it is not the all of Great Firewall. Great Firewall uses keyword filter to prevent user view sensitive sites for normal websites, even if you modify hosts file and redirect the web request to servers not blocked, you have to face the keyword check. Unless you are over a secured connection. This software official named "金盾", it is reported that the techinical and hardware for the keyword filtering is from Cisco. —221.196.188.187 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Chinese to whom this warning applies won't be able to see it anyway, and those who can see it probably won't care as it doesn't affect them. —Psychonaut 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To the user(s) above saying this is meant to tell people not to use certain keywords on certain articles... the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Nobody is going to tell me what words I can and cannot use. If the Chinese government doesn't like that, tough - maybe the Chinese people should get a new government. But that's not my problem, and it's not anyone else's problem on Wikipedia. Kafziel 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valuable to chinese readers and other interested parties. Sam Spade 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The only article this template is currently in use on appears to be Falun Gong, and the Chinese government's attitude toward Falun Gong is clearly described in that article already. However, any Wikipedia article might be inaccessible to users in China (see Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China), so I don't see what the point of this template is. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 66.167.138.184 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Delete per Psychonaut. Andrew Levine 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete should be used on every page. Also has a NPOV tone. Stevage 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Future game/yearcvg

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

• Delete. Not used, impossibly unwieldy name, and seems useless. -- Dpark 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Dpark, the / makes it look like a sub template. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Current Holiday

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

• Delete. This thing's just silly. -- Dpark 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. --Thelb⁴ 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Weasel words

Delete: Duplicate of Template:Weasel. This duplicate template was recently created and based on an older version of the original weasel template. We've been debating whether to use the term "weasel words" or "generic attributions" (or something else entirely), and rather than wait for a concensus, Crotalus horridus created this one specifically as a "Competing weasel words template". It's an intentional duplicate, which we do not need. Dpark 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. All ten articles this template is currently used on were previously using Template:weasel, and were converted to this new duplicate by Crotalus horridus. -- Dpark 16:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I felt that this was a better solution than engaging in a template edit war. This way, if people feel that a harsher weasel words warning is justified for some articles than for others, it can be tailored to the page as desired. Crotalus horridus 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There wasn't really an edit war going on, though. We were having a poll to decide. -- Dpark 16:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Please Note. Crotalus horridus agreed that since the conflict with Template:Weasel seems resolved, a redirect is appropriate. I've removed the TfD tag, since it seems a redirect has definite potential to be useful and poses no problem that I can see. -- Dpark 20:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:65xx processors

This navigation template is too unwieldy to be of much use. Despite the title, it includes not only processors in the 65xx family, but all of the various integrated circuits produced by MOS Technology. That name may not be familiar to you, but they were very big in the early 1980s (MOS products ran the Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Apple II family, and a bunch of arcade machines) and having a navigation template like this is like having one for all Intel or NVIDIA chips ever released. I have created smaller navigational templates for each category (video/sound chips, CPUs, etc.) and this template is now orphaned. Delete. Crotalus horridus 14:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I also created Category:MOS Integrated Circuits in case someone really does want to see all of this in one place. 168.30.196.106 15:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the title does not conform to WP standards, so it will have to be replaced. *sigh* --Wernher 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There was nothing wrong with the template as it was. It was not overly big or intrusive (it's a horizontal template, placed at the bottom of articles). The new arrangement is clearly too fine-grained (one of the new templates links to just ONE article, with no potential for growth). I am concerned that Crotalus horridus is making a lot of changes on the basis of personal taste rather than because they are clear, unambiguous improvements. (Note: I have never edited the template). Mirror Vax 19:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I responded to Mirror Vax on his Talk page. Crotalus horridus 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Mirror Vax on this one (even though I did some editing on one of the suggested replacement templates earlier tonight, I might add). I originally made the 65xx template to facilitate navigation among the quite diverse, but not extremely extensive, range of MOS chips; I suspect some readers might know vagely of the processors but perhaps not of the support chips. BTW, after Crotalus' recent edits to the template, it actually got more tidy. :-) As for the template's name, it is of absolutely no concern to readers. --Wernher 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User Capitalist

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

• As you are the creator and sole contributor to this template I have speedily deleted this, see WP:CSD specifically item number 7 under "General".--Sean|Black 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

• Template linking and transclusion check – Toolforge tool to see which pages are transcluded but not linked from or to a template
• WhatLinksHereSnippets.js – user script that allows for template use to be viewed from the Special:WhatLinksHere page
• AutoWikiBrowser – semi-automatic editor that can replace or modify templates using regular expressions
• Bots – robots editing automatically. All tasks have to be approved before operating. There are currently five bots with general approval to assist with implementing TfD outcomes:
  • AnomieBOT – substituting templates via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster
  • SporkBot – general TfD implementation run by Plastikspork
  • PrimeBOT – general TfD implementation run by Primefac
  • BsherrAWBBOT – general TfD implementation run by Bsherr
  • PearBOT II – general TfD implementation run by Trialpears

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

• Template:Infobox_tropical_cyclone2024 March 10 – Infobox_tropical_cyclone ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Infobox_storm2024 March 10 – Infobox_storm ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

• Merge into the singular {{infobox ship}} (currently a redirect):
  • Template:Infobox_ship_begin2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_career2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_characteristics ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_class_overview2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_class_overview ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_image2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_image ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_service_record2022 April 30 – Infobox_service_record ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

    I have hacked Module:Infobox ship which implements ship infoboxen without the external wikitable that the above templates require. Uses Module:Infobox; {{infobox ship begin}} is no longer required; parameter names are changed from sentence- to snake-case; section header height for career, characteristics, service record sections is normalized; custom fields are supported. I chose to retain the individual section templates as subtemplates:

    • {{Infobox ship/image}}
    • {{Infobox ship/career}}
    • {{Infobox ship/characteristic}}
    • {{Infobox ship/class}}
    • {{Infobox ship/service record}} – Module:Infobox ship implements only the 'ship' portion of {{Infobox service record}}

    In the main infobox these subtemplates are called with the |section<n>= parameters (aliases of |data<n>=).

    Comparisons between wikitable infoboxen and Module:Infobox ship infoboxen can bee seen at my sandbox (permalink).

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    Since the intent is to use Module:Infobox directly, why is Module:Infobox ship being used to generate the infobox? I can understand if there is need for a backend module to validate a value or something, but is there really a reason to have this unique code? Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    The original complaint was that the ship infoboxen templates are table templates masquerading as infobox templates. None of those templates use Module:Infobox. Module:Infobox ship answers that complaint. Yeah, we still have subtemplates, but, in my opinion, that is a good thing because the appropriate parameters and their data are contained in each particular subtemplate. The container subtemplates make it relatively easy for an editor reading an article's wikitext to understand. The current ship infobox system allows sections in any order (except for the position of {{infobox ship begin}} – not needed with Module:Infobox ship); whatever the final outcome of this mess, that facility must not be lost.

    Module:Infobox ship does do some error checking (synonymous parameters |ship_armor= / |ship_armour=, |ship_draft= / |ship_draught=, |ship_honors= / |ship_honours=, and |ship_stricken= / |ship_struck=). Whether {{infobox ship}} directly calls Module:Infobox or whether {{infobox ship}} calls Module:Infobox ship which then calls Module:Infobox is really immaterial so long as the final rendered result is a correctly formatted infobox.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Trappist the monk are you still interested in working on this Module? If not, I'd like to try to get it finished myself. The massive deviation I had in mind was to make one invocation of the module do everything. Each page will require individual attention to complete the merge into a proper infobox anyway, so I reason to go the extra mile to make it nicer in general. Repeatable parameters will have the normal n number appended to the end of the parameter. An alternative would be to have subboxes for repeating sections, which would be easier in general to replace and implement. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

    Sure, but I don't think that this page is the proper place to discuss. Choose some place more proper and let me know where that is?

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Replacement with {{Infobox aircraft}}:
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_type2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_type ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_career2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_program2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_program ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_begin2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_engine2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_engine ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
    • For {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, There is an ongoing discussion about whether the aircraft engine Infobox should be merged with the Infobox aircraft or not. Except for the engine Infobox, other Infoboxes can be orphaned and there are no objection for that. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • This discussion is still ongoing, so I have moved it back to the "to merge" list with the others. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
      • The discussion has now ended (diff), with the consensus NOT TO MERGE {{Infobox aircraft engine}} with the others. However {{infobox aircraft begin}} may or may not end up being merged into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. The template pages should be updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Navigation templates

• None currently

Link templates

• Template:Lx2023 October 1 – Lx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Pagelinks2023 October 1 – Pagelinks ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Because Lx has the option to hide certain links and PageLinks itself doesn't, a direct merge is impossible. The next best thing would be to convert the transclusions to invocations of Module:PageLinks. Doesn't look too impossible at first glance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    Problem: Lx's 20,000 transclusions are kinda fake, because almost all of them are transclusions of transclusions.
    Even if we restrict it to the template namespace, most of those are transclusions of transclusions of transclusions in the doc subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    The more I look at this, the more it appears technically infeasible. Lx has some really bizarre arguments like tag and label which can't be replicated by Module:PageLinks. When Lx was used to link to a normal page, namespace is usually Talk and label is usually talk, but when it's used to link to a talk page, either could be anything. Also, the recursive transclusion issue means the only way to get our pages would be an insource search, which means we'd also have to deal with pages like this.

    Replacing all uses of the format \{\{[Ll]x\|1=\|2=(.*)\|3=Talk\|4=talk\}\} with {{Pagelinks|$1}} could be a start. From there, I'm totally lost. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    What if we only replaced uses matching an insource search in the template namespace, and then substed everything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Other

• Template:Football_squad_player22020 February 1 – Football_squad_player2 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and Template:Football_squad_player2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Note Pending Redesign RfC robertsky (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I've closed the RfC. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Auto_compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Auto_compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Wikisource author2023 July 5 – Wikisource author ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Wikisourcelang2023 July 5 – Wikisourcelang ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Hi now that {{Wikisourcelang}} is being merged, how do I use the merge target template to point to sister language Wikisources? All the links keep incorrectly pointing to the English version and the documentation of {{Wikisource}} has not been updated about this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Folly Mox, the merge has not yet been completed, so you should use the appropriate currently-existing template to do whatever it is you are planning until the merge is complete. The existing uses will be converted appropriately at that time. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Oops, I forgot I had posted here. My assertion was incorrectly based on the first instance I had tested, which had been misusing parameters in such a way that it worked prior to the start of the merge process but not afterwards. The links to en.s/lang:page do properly redirect if the parameters are used correctly, but I didn't initially follow the links to check. It was quite an embarrassing hour or so of my contribution history. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Template:Wikisourcehas2023 July 5 – Wikisourcehas ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

• I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Template:Archive2023 December 7 – Archive ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Automatic_archive_navigator2023 December 7 – Automatic_archive_navigator ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Archive_navigation2023 December 7 – Archive_navigation ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

  I've ported the missing parameters from {{Archive}} to Module:Automatic archive navigator/sandbox. I'm in favor of renaming the module and changing {{Archive}} to use it, while redirecting {{Automatic_archive_navigator}} to Archive. I'd really appreciate if a template-editor could give this a look. — mw (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Check out the discussion at Template talk:Automatic archive navigator about whether or not these parameters should be ported over. |prev= and |next= from {{archive nav}} will definitely need to be added though. --Trialpears (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of that discussion, thanks. If it turns out that they shouldn't be ported, feel free to revert my edits. I'll look into the other params later.— mw (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Template:Facebook_page2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Meta

• Template:Non-free_use_rationale_2/doc2024 March 11 – Non-free_use_rationale_2/doc ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Non-free_use_rationale/doc2024 March 11 – Non-free_use_rationale/doc ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

• 2023 October 25
  • Template:R to related2023 October 25 – R to related ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} as appropriate
  • Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia2024 April 25 – Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

• None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

• None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

• None currently

Listings

December 20

Template:Unimage

• Ambigious copyright tag, the text basically says we don't know the copyright of this image. Images in this category should be dealt with under the existing fair use system, delete.--nixie 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Specifies the image to be UN property. Maybe the UN will grant us rights to use their images sometime in the future. Then we will be lamenting the loss of this template. Ashibaka tock 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• If they do, we can always undelete it. Delete for now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. Ronald20 ☎ ✎ 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

December 19

Template:Dubious

Breaks article flow and improperly injects the reader into page content disputes (which was the primary objection raised against Template:Afd-noconsensus and Template:Twoversions). It also contains a cross-namespace link to the article talk page. Firebug 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Language link; also equivalent Template:Ll

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

By the way, the inappropriateness of this template is underlined by the hideous way this is showing up in articles now that I tagged it with {{tfd}}: most of the time it's sitting in the middle of prose. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I changed {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix that issue. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. Agree with Jmabel. --Khoikhoi 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete --Gareth Hughes 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Language" is a word that is frequently misspelled, whereas "subst:ll" is rather more difficult to get wrong. Chris talk back 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:AustraliaGov

• Uninformative and ambigious image copyright tag, there is a very good tag for PD images from Australia {{PD-Australia}}, fair use images that might be tagged with this tag should be tagged within the current fair use structure, delete.--nixie 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-Australia-CC}}. This template doesnt do anything new. Agnte 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• So what do we do with the images that have this tag? If we know the image is 50+ years old, we tag it {{PD-Australia-CC}}, but otherwise, what tag should they have? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've already moved everything that could be more accurately tagged, all that remains is some military insignia which I see can be tagged with {{Military-Insignia}}.--nixie 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:SummersEve

• Delete.: Can we speedy this? Its only purpose is for personal attacks on users. BrianSmithson 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: First, there is nothing in the speedy policy to allow this to go fast. Second, anything can be used as personal attacks, that doesn't mean anything. If people are engaging in personal attacks, there is a policy for that. This is valuable in increasing the morale of the wiki editors and provides entertainment if used tastefully. -- Jbamb 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete.--nixie 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and sanction creator. Guettarda 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Its an attack template. It shouldn't be used WP:NPA Agnte 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I cleared it, delete it. -- Jbamb 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted, at request--Sean|Black 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Parappa

• Delete: The songs just redirect back to the article that the template is on or are not yet created. Not needed. Thorpe 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There was an AFD about the song articles, and the consensus was to merge and redirect into Parappa the Rapper. This template is all that remains of the pre-AFD version of things. — BrianSmithson 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lowercase-Apple

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

• Delete, we can't be this specific for this type of thing, and the Apple logo is not fair use on this template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above (but perhaps put a noinclude thing around the tfd tag because it's ugly on some pages). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too specific; {{lowercase}} is just fine for this purpose. —Psychonaut 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:UK A

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

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

Template:UK B

Please see the discussion of Template:UK A above.

Template:ContraSub

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

• Delete - against longstanding Wikipedia custom not to put tags permanently on article pages. Also, the hand-in-a-stop-sign image is widely (on Wikipedia) used to mean - "you've been blocked, or are in deep trouble in some way" and so is inappropriate for a mere friendly alert that a topic is controversial. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would suggest putting it on the talk pages, but seeing that {{controversial}} already does that, there's no need for this template, as placing them on the article page is quite bad form. Also, it should be {{ControSub}}, not {{ContraSub}}, but that's a different matter. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 06:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Every casual reader will see this and a casual reader doesn't need to have his attention drawn to the talk page; it was added to GNAA because of the AfDs and Featured article nominations, but any editor experienced enough to AfD or nominate things for FA status will probably know to look at talk pages first anyway. CanadianCaesar 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, this goes against BE BOLD. "Discuss changes on the talk page first"? No thank you. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Controversial articles need more editing, not less. -Silence 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

December 18

Template:S

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

• Delete - Unless I'm missing something, this serves no purpose --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - See User:Kukkurovaca/BuddhistShortcuts for the original intent. - Mark Hurd 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that it has been SUBSTed where it was actually being used (which should have been done before nomination IMHO). —Phil | Talk 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mexico Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Elink

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

December 17

Template:Policylist

A) We don't need goofy cartoon pictures making our policy pages look like jokes. B) Perfectly adequately addressed by categories. C) Overly selective. D) The world does not need more ugly boxes. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This has been temporarily commented out of the policy pages and a shrunken version is being hacked on - see also Template talk:Policylist - David Gerard 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Too big, and overshadows the policy page itself. Maybe a little something at the bottom, but this is too much. -- SCZenz 23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks good to me. Conveys a serious link between important WP policies and guidelines in an aesthetically pleasing way, jguk 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems fine to me. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the images are removed. They look silly, and Snidely there can't be fair use in this template, can he? android79 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, looks like "Snidely" is just a very, very good imitation. Still don't like the images, though. android79 01:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What I was trying to promote was making personal attacks "evil" with the picture but over objections I replaced that image with the "dont bite newbies" one. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure what to do about the images, though. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If you image-search Google for Snidely Whiplash, that image shows up on quite a few different sites, apparently identified as the cartoon character. Whatever its origin, it appears to be so easily confused with the copyrighted/trademarked character as to be inappropriate for use like this. Monicasdude 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It wasnt a copy vio but, I did decide to replace it with "dont bite newbies" image. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• A template with a list of key policies might be useful if it could be maintained. I am skeptical about the feasibility of that task. I would rather have no list than an incomplete list. As such, my opinion is a weak delete. The cartoons on this list, however, trivialize the policies and present an attitude not of informality but of ridicule. They are entirely inappropriate. I don't really care if someone used this on their userpage but I strongly object to its use on any regular page. If kept in its current format (with the cartoons), I must argue that we are better off without it altogether and would change my opinion to strong delete. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "selection criteria" question seems to have been answered on the template's Talk page. While I'm not sure that we have the right content yet, that's a discussion that can be continued on the Talk page. Change my "weak delete" opinion to abstain. Rossami (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I do not see whats wrong with it. There is nothing goofy about the cartoons. It is indeed overly selective however it does link to everything. which is several pages long (just the list). The most imperative policies are mentioned for beginners Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedie delete since I am not allowed to use images on it, I have no reason to support the existance of that template. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, hey Phil, this sounds like a content dispute to me. Why not debate this on the templates talk page and gain consensus rather than "nuking the site from orbit". —Locke Cole 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is fine for user pages, but on the actual policy pages it is redundant with the {{policy}} template (which is also much more attractive and and has a cleaner presentation). If it's proposed that this be on policy pages, I'd say delete just to keep it the heck away from them. If it's going to be only on user pages and other pages that aren't facing our entire user base, then I'd say keep.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I know that but we have too many policies and its confusing. These really are the core policies. What is core and what isn't is subject to a discussion, no doubt. However I really feel listing everything on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on this template (which does link to that page) a very bad idea. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 04:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps that means that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines needs a rewrite, not that we need a new box? If this is just a band-aid (and I'm not presuming that it is right yet), then it's not going to help in the long run.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful summary of major policies. Trödel|talk 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I removed all three pictures, both because they were too big and because the "Villain" picture was tpo unserious for a policy page. Keep revised version. Firebug 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Cool Cat seems to have a problem with others editing it. --SPUI (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have problem with you editing. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Chill out, Cool Cat. android79 06:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh I am calm :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Then assume some nice, calm good faith. Phil Sandifer 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Not to SPUI. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes. To SPUI. Phil Sandifer 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Nope I have a zero tolerance policy towards trolls. I cannot. Sorry. GNAA is as trollish as one gets. With that offensive user talk page of his braging about 'helping drive him off!' admins he will recive maximum hostily from me. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't look ugly. - 211.30.173.113 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure. Not an inherently awful idea, but I'd lose no sleep if it died. WAY too big. Not sure about ordering. Possibly acceptable with serious work. I'll try to find time to have a hack at it - David Gerard 10:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Boy, and after I'd taken my crack at it and made it smaller. Check the history, this thing was ghastly big originally (but unlike some, I see the potential!). =) —Locke Cole 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised version. the wub "?!" 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the box, get rid of pictures. Zocky 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It is missing all of the useful and important policies. Bensaccount 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but hopefully improve. All the wikipedia guidelines and policies are like a big unsorted "to do" list. This is a step in the right direction where users might take them seriously as having some sort of finiteness. Stevage 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In response to objections raised that it was inappropriate to have a TFD tag prominently featured on policy pages, I created a refactored deletion notice that fits into the bottom of the navigation box and has wording that may be less intimidating to newbies. I hope this is acceptable. Firebug 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I also added WP:POINT and WP:BEANS. Firebug 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when was BEANS a policy or a guideline? -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hideous, selective and being spammed all over the place. -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's fantastic. The template has been transformed in recent days and it looks good, and is concise and to-the-point. A welcome addition. Dan100 (Talk) 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and it seems as though that we are now discussing a different template (in the evolution of templates, anyway) than the one that was originally nominated for deletion. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has been cleaned up and looks professional, and as long as the goofy pictures aren't included. --NormanEinstein 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Jbamb 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:UKUSA Community

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

Template: BostonInfoBox

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

• Speedy Delete - It was probably made by a user who didn't quite know what they're doing. The page that linked to it has been fixed to use Infobox City, so there's no need for this thing to be around any longer. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Afd-noconsensus

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

• Delete - Why would an AFD result of "no consensus" have any bearing on whether or not someone would want to read an article? → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Exposes too much of the workings of Wikipedia to the casual reader. Also, as per nom and the guy with the big sig above me. :) FreplySpang (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gives the false impression that "no consensus" is not functionally "keep", which it is. Other templates already allow one to note that the result was "no consensus". Also, the "You may wish to take this into consideration when deciding whether or not to read this article." is horrifyingly POVed and presumptive. -Silence 14:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by the link to the deleted page notice, which invites the reader to pretend that the page has been deleted and protected. —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, boxcruft. AfD conclusions belong on talk pages, not in big ugly boxes at the top of the article. If there is doubt about factual accuracy, use {{disputed}}. In any case, AfD is not for deciding whether the content is accurate or not, but merely whether the subject is worth including in Wikipedia at all. The two issues are orthogonal, and should not be confused like this template does. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. android79 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme predjudice against further attempts to suggest that articles need 2/3 consensus to exist in the first place. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per everybody.--Sean|Black 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, also per everybody. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. Delete borderline nonsense with the link to the deleted page; it does indeed show malice to articles kept by no consensus. CanadianCaesar 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This template was created by Firebug because he doesn't like the result of an Afd that he participated in. He's been trying all sorts of desperate measures including redirecting the article without consensus (and without even seeking a conensus). Here he is placing it on the article: [4] RJII 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per reasons above. gtdp 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete. Deletion policy needs a dynamite enema in general, but we can start by unpicking things like this that are used for assumption of bad faith - David Gerard 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - There is a difference between a consensus keep and a technical keep. One means that there was agreement to keep the article, the other means that there wasn't agreement to delete. The existing template allows the closing admin to specify the result, be it "keep" or "no consensus", we don't need another template for this specific case when the general one will do. Chris talk back 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Place Subject Here-footer

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

• It looks like a "template for making templates". Just copying the syntax from another template is usually enough, and this is neither special nor educational. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Correction

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

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

--Qirex 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied. Call me a rouge admin if you like, but these bulletin-board-style posts have no place in any article, ever. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler3

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

• Delete. We only need one spoiler template. Really.--Sean|Black 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if we needed another, this is not it. BDAbramson T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 _→AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. Yuck indeed. --Qirex 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Okay guys, I'm sorry I ever made {{spoiler2}}, I had no idea it would lead to this ... --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I still think we need a better spoiler template than the one we have, but this one is clearly not acceptable. Kafziel 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gerard Foley 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I won't get into the spoiler-template design thing outside of the fact that this is an unneeded, unacceptable template that should be deleted. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not acceptable. -- DS1953 ^talk 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

December 16

Template:Album_infobox_2

It's time to put this one out of its misery. If the discussion when this deletion was first proposed wasn't (quite) convincing (archived here [5] ), the choices of active editors are now clear. So far this month, for example, it's been used in only 14 new album articles; in contrast, the standard template has been used in more than 750. Overall, this template is currently used in just under 750 articles, while the standard template is used in nearly 10,000. Since nobody's made an argument against a uniform infobox style in album articles, and the preference of active editors is overwhelmingly clear, I can't see any reason not to Delete (with whatever cleanup of the existing use is required). Monicasdude 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• How about just setting it as a REDIRECT? There wouldn't be need for any cleanup. --Tokle 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep – the preference is not overwhelmingly clear. It takes more effort for people to use this template, and couple this with the fact that it's not as well advertised, I'm not surprised at the disparity in usage. I'll also note that you went through at least five albums and removed this template from them prior to nominating it here. IMO that's bad faith, and I'll be digging further through your contribs to see if you've been violating WP:POINT. —Locke Cole 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. There is a clear infobox recommendation. If you want to try to build consensus for a change to a new template, convince the WikiProject to adopt it. Removing this template is editing to the guidelines of both a WikiProject, WP:FAC standards, and to Wikipedia:Fair use. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of WikiProject Albums and aware of the template promoted there. This template is nearly identical to the template there except for the additional navigational images. In so far as your latter comment: the only way it "edits to the guidelines" of WP:FAC is in so far as it agrees with a WikiProject exactly, and I've made my arguement in the previous sentence for why I think that's irrelevant. This isn't some drastically different template/fork, it's nearly identical to the one used by the WikiProject. As to Fair use, it is my opinion that usage of images in this way is in compliance with fair-use. I liken the relationship between {{Album infobox}} and {{Album infobox 2}} as being the same as {{Afd}} and {{Afdx}}. Very minor, but enough of a difference that it warrants a seperate template. —Locke Cole 01:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My arguments for this are at Template talk:Album infobox 2. Briefly, this template differs from the WikiProject recommendation by adding two more album covers. That means more graphics to d/l, a bigger box, and more overuse of unfree content. Wikipedia:Fair use encourages us to use copyrighted images as little as possible, and WP:FAC examines that use very strictly. The use of this template (and the ensuing edit-wars) means that album articles are often frustrating to work on. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - makes additional use of fair use images which should be kept down (and is in my opinion more irritating than helpful as the images link to the image pages, and not to the album's articles). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Template is useful, more presentable and any claims of "fair use" abuse have not been proven. This discussion is a waste of time, as it was in October. BGC 21:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be a clear consensus against this version and no consensus to use it in place of the pre-existing template. Gamaliel 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, both templates seem to be used pretty substantially. No compelling reason to delete has been offered. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an unnecessary template fork. - Lee (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Encourages the mis-use of non-free images. Also a usability nightmare, as the "next cover" and "previous cover" images don't link to the articles they seem to be linking to. --Carnildo 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Argue, don't fork. Fair-use issues, etc. Bad idea. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As it's been covered already: I've seen no convincing argument that this isn't covered by fair use; the "additional images to download" argument is rediculous, even on dial-up, the size of those images is negligble; I see no convincing argument to delete. As an additional note, if someone can point out a statement from the concensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums against the use of this template, I'll change my vote to delete. Their page lists infobox as the standard, which it is. This means that it has the majority of use, not that the other shouldn't be used. Until something more convincing comes along, I will continue to vote keep. Arturus 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Carolaman 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo.—jiy (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same as my previous vote over this. The "navigational images" direct the user to the image page itself. Fair use issue (i.e., it isn't fair use). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not convinced that this is in conflict with fair use policy, due to the very small display size (50px) and the fact that the albums displayed are only the preceding, current, and following albums. I have seen numberous instances where editors have created discographies of musicians and displayed 100px+ images for each album ever released by that artist (eg The Beatles discography, U2 discography, Michael Jackson discography, Pink Floyd discography, Led Zeppelin discography etc). That is excessive, not this. I do not necessarily advocate this infobox over the other one, however I personally use album infobox 2 when placing an infobox on an album page where one is not already present. I don't think it is right to change album infobox 2 to album infobox nor visa versa. If people are passionate about which infobox they percieve to be the correct one, I urge those users to place whatever they want at any of the albums listed here, and not to change existing infoboxes as that is far less constructive and far more likely to cause unnecessary conflict. --Qirex 08:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I find it more irritating than helpful for navigation, as the images link to the image pages rather than the article pages. I also think it's completely pointless to display the same image for an album twice in an infobox. HarryCane 12:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is it possible to make the pictures link to the album though? ProveIt 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You can say there's a same problem with pictures not linking to the intended page at Wikipedia:Reference desk, but they aren't complaining, are they? Keep because it's harmless. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template forks suck. See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace for details. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo, and also Mirv's comments on template forking. --NormanEinstein 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo, Mirv. android79 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo and Wikipedia:Fair use. Extraordinary Machine 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, think there is an amount of certainty for fair use for such articles. -- Natalinasmpf 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nat is right. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo; also per Mirv, especially as the template fork introduces inconsistency when navigating through a band's albums and different albums use different templates. Nothings 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: BTW, for anyone concerned about usability issues (specifically, that when you click on the image you're taken to the image page, not the specific album pictured), please look at {{Click}}. Assuming this survives TfD, someone should look into integrating this into {{Album infobox 2}}. —Locke Cole 08:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have made an attempt at integrating "click" into the template at template:Album infobox test. I can't get it to work right though. Someone with a bit more programing skill should take a look at it. --Tokle 22:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I quite agee with the infrobox 2 but do appreciate the usability issue raised in the last posting. Click on the image should take the user to the album NOT the image, that can happen on the main album page itself. Kevinalewis 11:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kevinalewis. Album cover ABSOLUTELY should be linked to the article, NOT the picture. --Cjmarsicano 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:PC

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

• Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to {{PresChoice}} or something that removes the ambiguity (I don't think that an apostrophe can be used in the title, right?). Courtland 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - we really don't need this- agree with Aecis' arguments. --G Rutter 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fancruft

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

• Delete for the following reasons: (1) orphan (2) silly (3) don't put self-references on article pages unless they're REALLY important! Ashibaka tock 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There's no such thing as fancruft, it's just a buzzword for people to use when they want to convince other people that a topic isn't noteworthy. Concerns like this should be brought up on the Talk page, where civil discussion is possible, not introduced with something as hostile as a buub (big ugly useless box) stamped on the page. -Silence 17:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, bordering on nonsense outside AfD CanadianCaesar 00:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you believe there is such a thing as fancruft, as I do, the solution to that is to remove it from the article, not to add this ugly-ass notice to the top. android79 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well put. -Silence 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subsumed by Template:Cleanup et al. —Psychonaut 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as well as Android79. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete take it to the talk page. QQ 22:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps it should be replaced by this? Chris talk back 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fictional animals cat

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

• • Question: redundant with what? What else already exists that does the job of this template? Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and then delete. ^BlankVerse 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question; where would you put this list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Listify and delete I agree with BlankVerse Arturus 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and delete, per above. BDAbramson T 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am somewhat mystified as to the actual problem with this template. It provides navigation between a huge number of related categories: how would this be made any easier by forcing users to navigate via some other separate list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:UK ties

delete: Orphaned at some point, {{UK ties2}} used in place of it. Thanks/wangi 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and redirect {{UK ties2}} to it. I prefer this version. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias - SoM 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias--Mais oui! 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

{{UK ties2}} is used only on United Kingdom. Subst either of these templates and then delete both. No need to clutter the template namespace with single-use templates that will only slow us down (in more ways than one). Chris talk back 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:P-protected

And Category:Protected due to publicity

This template is for protection due to high visibility... which is unwiki and against current policy. We protect pages that have excessive vandalism ({{vprotect}}), but not before. In fact, the fact that an article was mentioned somewhere that it is getting attention is good and presents our face to new visitors. As well as the fact that new visitors represent a chance for our article to improve by their edits, and shouldn't be protected from them except in extraordinary circumstances. As well, it's in direct contradiction to WP:PPol, which says:

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.

May also want to review User:Raul654/protection for the reasons behind this. Should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - regardless of the protection policy, recent events have made it clear that this is not the case, as Jimbo protected the Seigenthaler article prior to the CNN appearance, and Kyra Phillips was protected the moment she mentioned it. This ought not become regular behavior, however it is clear that there is a threshold at which point we protect, in which case this template is important. Note that this template also encourages users towards other articles that they can edit, mitigating many of the problems of "But we want the first article people hit to be editable" Phil Sandifer 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not about wanting the readers to be able to edit, it's about the encyclopedia. Editing is how our encyclopedia functions. In any case, this template is not a good way to make policy, or even common practice. If you want to propose this policy (which I would dispute at this point), do so, but don't put it into practice without consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not putting it into practice. Jimbo already has put it into practice. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This template is an attempt to make it common practice without community support. You cannot pretend that Seigenthaler is an ordinary situation. The fact is that while Jimbo has the ultimate goal of our encyclopedia always in mind, he is sometimes out of touch with the specifics of how things work at a given time (a certain 17 second block comes to mind). He has worries other than editing here every day. If anything I would say this is a much more IAR necessitated action, rather than a new practice that is anything like policy yet. Dmcdevit·t 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is not the ideal forum for policy considerations, which is the basis of Dmcdevit's objections. Besides, IMHO, that paragraph in WP:PPOL is unjustifiably optimistic (and appears to refer only to online sources, to boot), and should probably be changed. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I think that this would make sense if there was a policy proposal... but right now it's just wrong. Nothing will reasonably be protected with this template. Dmcdevit·t 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, high volume public pages need some sort of label.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No article should ever be "protected due to publicity", since the entire point of getting publicity for Wikipedia is to let people edit the article being publicized so the Wikipedia process gets the news out. Also, it's not a good habit to protect articles just because they're being vandalized; reverting vandalism is easy, and articles that are receiving lots of edits are also getting plenty of good editors in addition to the vandals. Protecting pages should only be used as an anti-vandalism measure in truly extreme cases, not as a regular, everyday tool (for the same reason articles featured on the main page aren't locked). All it takes to make sure that none of the vandalisms are slipping through is to do what I always do: do a compare between the current version and the version 20 or 30 edits ago, and see if any new vandalism has slipped in (particularly effective since I've found that major edits that aren't vandalism are relatively rare for high-publicity articles). In any case, this template is unnecessary and redundant to other templates that already address the "protected due to vandalism" and "prone to vandalism due to having been recently cited or linked to" issues. Also, embarrassingly self-referential and bloated; does it really need the "800,000" self-advertisement bit added at the end? -Silence 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You may say that no article should ever be protected due to publicity, but Jimbo directly countered you on that one, so the objection is moot - he had John Seigenthaler Sr. protected before going on CNN. As for the self-advertisement bit, yes - the expectation is that the page in question is going to be the first Wikipedia page hit by a huge swarm of people who do not know much about Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I already know that Jimbo directly countered me on this one, as you've already stated it above. This would certainly influence my vote, were it not for the simple matter.. that Jimbo is wrong. Templates like this will do nothing but embarass Wikipedia and stunt it's growth at times when it most needs to be consistent and open to new contributions and exploration of the editing process. The best response to vandalism is reversion, not protection; protection should be the exception, for only the most brutal cases of vandalizing—not the norm. And if there's a vandalism storm going on, whether the article's being frequently populated right now or not isn't irrelevant, as the problem's still the same. -Silence 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• You gravely misunderstand how Wikipedia policy works. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Regardless of how grave my misunderstanding is, Jimbo doesn't become any more right no matter how many times one says "Jimbo did X". If my opinion is invalid because Jimbo is a god on earth whose will is not to be defied by the likes of mere mortals, then feel free to ignore my opinion, but that in itself will neither change it nor prevent me from expressing it. If our only purpose here is to interpret what we think Jimbo wants, not to interpret Wikipedia policy and goals and what's best for the articles, then we should probably skip the voting process on this issue altogether and just ask Jimbo to cast the only vote on the matter, then go with that. No need to run around in circles if the decision's pre-made, sure. But it's still a poor template that does not benefit Wikipedia.
• Incidentally, based on what I know of the situation involving the articles that Jimbo protected, don't you think that it's more likely that he protected those articles because the ongoing news they were involved in directly related to Wikipedia? Plenty of articles get linked to and mentioned in the news all the time, but they don't usually get protected right off the bat; the difference here is not that the articles were especially prone to vandalism, but rather that vandalism was especially dangerous because Wikipedia's reputation was on the line due to the subject of the news being Wikipedia itself. So, even if protecting a page is warranted in such a situation, protecting it with a tag like this one is pointless and highly misleading. A tag involving the fact that the article is in the news because of itself (as was the case with John Seigenthaler Sr.) would be much more relevant and honest. -Silence 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, again as per Silence's comments above. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. High profile articles might be what draws attention to wikipedia, but new users should spend some time getting to know the correct way to edit articles. They shouldn't be editing the first page they ever see. By the time they learn the ropes, the page that got them here will no longer be protected and they will be able to make whatever reasonable improvements they want. Kafziel 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. Ugly, verbose, and unecessary. ^BlankVerse 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Publicity draws new experts to articles; those experts can't contribute if article is protected. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Delete contrary to policy, based on a misuderstanding of Jimbo's actions in the Seigenthaler case; per Silence. It's a mistake anyone could have made, but it's still a mistake. Articles are not and should not be protected due to publicity; they are (sometimes) protected due to self-reference (i.e. the Main Page is particularly visible in Wikipedia therefore it is protected), the Seigenthaler (and Kyra) page's were particularly visible due to their subjects involvement with Wikipedia, therefore they were protected). JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment, and eventually Redirect to {{sprotect}}, when that comes online. I view this as a patch measure, since Semi-protection seems to cover the reasons for this template, but isn't operational yet. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference

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

Template:CHSUB

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

• Delete; useless, noise only. Schutz 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC

Template:2004

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

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. BDAbramson T 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

December 15

Template:Webber

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

• Yeah, get rid of it. Beyond unwiki into just plain rude. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Guettarda 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and remove all instances from non-User page spaces; any use on a non-User page of any kind should be dealt with as vandalism. Courtland 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I see no point in userfying - there are no instances in any space, and it's a bad template to have, period. BDAbramson T 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied by me. No reason for this to stay around any longer. android79 01:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mainarticles

Template not used. Superseded by {{main}}. CG 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{main}}. This is logical alternative name, and is likely to be used by editors unaware that the actual template has been superseded. —Lifeisunfair 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to main. --Stbalbach 21:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is no longer in use and (in my opinion) unlikely to be recreated with this name. Courtland 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I just used {{main articles}} on State highways in New Jersey, not knowing it had been redirected; I could have just as easily have guessed the form without a space. --SPUI (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Supercbbox

Delete: It's unnecessary to have a infobox for every little thing. This template just contains information that can all easily be covered in the lead section. Also, it lists the title both on top and then again in Statistics for no apparent reason. And it's only used on a handful of articles, hardly filled-out in some of them (like Alias (comics)). All in all, it's not very helpful and rather chunky. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete without prejudice against an improved version being created. I have no problem with the concept of this infobox, but it's very badly implemented - SoM 13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Your arguments didn't convince me as to why it should be deleted, and my position is "Keep" by default. The template could use some fixing up, sure, so ... fix it up instead of deleting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyde (talk • contribs)
• Keep - The infobox is good for Comics Series (ex.Supreme Power) and Graphic Novel (ex.Watchmen), articles of no one can uses the other three infobox. Yes fix up instead of deleting it input your prograing to User:Brown Shoes22 --Brown Shoes22 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This infobox works marvellously on the Watchmen page. It clearly shows the type of comic Watchmen was, and the fact it is now a graphic novel, which is informative to first-time readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthesestars (talk • contribs)
• Keep (but fix)... and Brown Shooes22, just speak ONCE when voting. Dyslexic agnostic 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as it is improved. The "creators" line is no good for long-running corporate-owned series and anthologies. --Pc13 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

December 14

Template:FrTed

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

• Keep was created as a tongue-in-cheek way of dealing with light vandalism where a heavy warning was merely likely to drive a new user away. It and the rest in the series are intended to be a lighthearted way of asking people to stop doing stupid things. Has been used in that context and worked in all cases. It and all the other templates that exist deal with specific problems that the test templates are unsuited to handling. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep per Jtdirl. Izehar (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasoning as {{Behave}}, plus this one is slightly worse; folks on both sides of the pond have likely heard of Austin Powers. I'm guessing most non-UK users will be left scratching their heads... android79 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually Father Ted is shown in among other places the United States, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and even in Latin America. You seriously underestimate the international audience of the show. It has a particularly strong cult viewership among students in part of the US. It was chosen for the template on that basis. You may not be aware of it. Millions of other (non British people) are. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone is disputing that people watch Father Ted. But I think we can all agree that not everybody does. The probability of a random vandal not knowing of it (or not liking it) is too great for this template to be of practical risk-free use in any such contexts. EldKatt (Talk) 15:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete there is no reason to assume that a particualr user knows of a perticualr TV show, and this is nmot an appropriate way to handle a light-hearted warning, IMO DES ^(talk) 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gerard Foley 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless. If vandal-removers want to use this template, so be it. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same as with the behave-template. Variations of the sterile test1 and test2 can be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jtdirl. Gary Kirk 12:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If a "light-hearted" warning is necessary, use one without pop culture references. (I have no idea what this one is about). Kusma (討論) 14:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - certainly not as useful as Template:Behave. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Dan | talk 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we have to approach vandalism on a case-by-case basis. Djegan 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Warning messages shouldn't presuppose that a user is familiar with a particular television show or other cultural reference. —Psychonaut 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. I've never heard of "Father Ted", and the template seems silly, but if it reduces the vandalism from UK school IPs by even 1%, hell, keep it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:18, Dec. 15, 2005
• Weak delete ditto Jifish Borisblue 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe it does need revision to be effective on US vandals, but it works as an escalation against those who have already been warned. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm all for more humorous and relaxed vandalism responses, but this template is clearly a failed experiment in this area. It comes across more like an old, out-of-the-loop disciplinarian trying (and failing) to be "cool" and "hip" by misusing pop culture references, than as a genuinely layed-back and entertaining comment. People who aren't fans of the show (i.e. the vast majority of Wikipedia vandals, regardless of its popularity) will just be thoroughly confused ("Father Ted? Is this some sort of weird Wikipedia thing?") and annoyed, and people who are fans of the show will just roll their eyes at how blatant and uncleverly-worded the text is (going out of your way to define the show's terminology is like going out of your way to explain a joke; it diffuses all potential humor from the situation). Anyone who wants to use this message can easily just copy it into any usertalk page he wants to use it on, but it shouldn't be a Wikipedia template unless it's a vandalism-response that's actually of some use. -Silence 14:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Silence above. Thanks/wangi 14:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This completely fails to encourage taking Wikipedia "seriously". User:Silence makes his point well. EldKatt (Talk) 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy. To have this in the main namespace is silly by itself.  Grue  17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Weak delete. Iff kept, restrict its use to the user pages of UK & Irish vandals. ^BlankVerse 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not a helpful talk message. Ashibaka tock 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (with option to Userfy). I appreciate the effort, but it's rather too ideosyncractic for general use. Feel free to keep using it yourself, though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not helpful. --Carnildo 01:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to Userspace. I've seen the show on late night Public Broadcasting, but otherwise would have no idea. I would never use it, but I think it may be applicable in some instances and should be moved to the userspace. -Scm83x 07:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - wholly uncommunicative, and jokiness is not the message we want to send to vandals. Phil Sandifer 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jtdirl. Go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on... the wub "?!" 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Endspoiler

Unnecessary clutter; not particularly useful. — Dan | talk 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful for demarcating spoiler text that doesn't end at the end of an article or section. android79 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - useful if someone wants to mark a specific part of an entry as a spoiler. Without this, if a spoiler warning is put up, people reading may skip the rest of the article not knowing whether the spoilers are a single paragraph, or go right to the end. -- VederJuda 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per VederJuda. --OGoncho 00:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Highly usefl IMO. Strong Keep as per both keep comments above. DES ^(talk) 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Useful template. Hbdragon88 06:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, quite useful. —Brent Dax 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also consider that a javascript/css implementation can be added to actually hide the text, if desired. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 06:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and written the javascript. There's probably a more efficient way to do it, but this works. —Cryptic (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per VederJuda and Android79. While it remains generally obscured in use, it's still useful in indicating remaining article contents that are not spoilers. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) ╫
• Keep until Wikipedia removes spoiler warnings altogether. Useful. -Silence 08:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I use it when the article is long and when it is difficult to say on first glance, where the spoilers end. --Gurubrahma 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It is useful for articles where spoilers end somewhere in the middle of an article. Wolf ODonnell 11:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per all of the above. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Maybe we can close this TfD already? It's obvious where this is going. Everyone thinks it should be kept! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - If this is so useless, why did I come to the TfD page through this template's use on several pages? Staxringold 12:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - An excellent template for use in fiction-related articles. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Additional thought: I suspect that having this template would be very useful if somebody were to use Javascript to hide the spoiler area. — DLJessup (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's very useful when people might miss out on useful information because they're afraid it might have spoilers. gtdp 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Y'know, just about everyone else has already said what I think about it. --Yar Kramer 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Keep per anyone who has voted. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I removed the TfD notice because this is really obvious by now. (Sorry for being a bit bold.) Ashibaka tock 22:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ditto --Ezeu 07:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Behave

Ugly; puerile; redundant with the test templates. — Dan | talk 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Good for not making anyone angry - defuses situation. Besides, I think it looks quite nice :-) --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - IMO, "ooh, behave" usually conveys (at best) a mixed message in the movies. Maybe it's a cultural difference, I don't know. But I don't see this as especially effective for the average high-school vandal. Instead, it's just cute. FreplySpang (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  Striking my vote after seeing Ashibaka's edits. Thanks, Ashibaka. I'm okay with the current wording. FreplySpang (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, if that's the way it's going to be, just delete the thing. FreplySpang (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I've seen this used a few times, and each time it was completely ignored. The standard warnings serve fine for vandals; either they'll stop after a warning message or they'll ignore everything. android79 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep was created as a tongue-in-cheek way of dealing with light vandalism where a heavy warning was merely likely to drive a new user away. It and the rest in the series are intended to be a lighthearted way of asking people to stop doing stupid things. Has been used in that context and worked in all cases. It and all the other templates that exist deal with specific problems that the test templates are unsuited to handling. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think that this is more appropriate than the incomprehensable {{test}} template for dealing with humorous noob tests (I would advocate changing the colour though). Izehar (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How is "Hey, stop that" incomprehensible? android79 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • {{test}} doesn't say that though, does it? Do you know that I've been asked what that message means. Unless someone's actually testing (that's rare - in most cases they're just vandalising), it means nothing to them. Izehar (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's obviously not a user test, then start with {{test2}}. android79 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It's too harsh for a first time vandal. Izehar (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Curt, maybe, but harsh? It even uses "Please" and "thank you". android79 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
            • How about severe? Izehar (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The more formal warning just riles people up. - Xed 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I like the more gentle and informal wording, and the smiley. I also support putting an Hieronymus Bosch cartoon on {{test5}} -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a good way to get a point across that this is an encyclopedia and not a playground. Prsgoddess187 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep can't do any harm. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless, see above. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete indicative of WP:BEANS. --Gurubrahma 07:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How does this template indicate Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose? Using this template does not promote making jokes on Wikipedia, but disparages using the encyclopedia for humor. Sycthos^Talk 23:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Variations of the old stereotype test1 and test2 templates are useful. People get bored with those, and this one looks pretty cute and friendly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - gives vandals the impression that their work is funny.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Doctor10. Especially in light of the recent bad press, we don't need to be coddling vandals or newbies who couldn't be bothered to learn the rules first. Kafziel 14:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So how can that be reconciled with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? There are certain cases where {{test}} is inappropriate. Izehar (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If {{test}} is inappropriate, then nothing needs to be said at all. If it is the clear case of an honest mistake, the article can be reverted without further comment. If the same user does the same sort of thing more than once or twice, then he or she has moved on into vandalism. We all started here as newbies at one point or another; we didn't all go around messing up articles at random. Kafziel 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{test} is appropriate when the vandal/newbie made a test. It if was clearly simple vandalism ("Tom loves Sally" kind of thing), then it means nothing to them. I don't know if you've ever been on RC Patrol, but they don't understand it. I've even been asked what it meant. Izehar (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what? I don't care anymore. I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote.

• Delete, I don't understand it. Do they vandalise wiki's in movies? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we have to approach vandalism on a case-by-case basis. Djegan 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep I'll start using this on RC patrol... good templateBorisblue 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - {{test2}} works fine, and is not too harsh for obvious vandalism. Mike5904 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I loved this the moment I saw it. It's perfect for RC patrolling in the 1500-2000 UTC weekday time when all the schoolkids are doing their silly vandalisms; it works. They stop, they don't get mad and leave obscenities on user pages, it's effective. Antandrus (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't use this one too often, but it does work well on certain kinds of vandals. It might need some tweaks, but definitely not a deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or completely redesign. A Wikipedia vandalism-response box should not sound like a 50-year-old's attempts to seduce a teen. The entire tone of the box suggests "THIS IS AN AWARD FOR YOUR DOING GREAT! KEEP IT UP!", smiley face and coy tone and all, not the polite and welcoming but stern information it should have. I also agree that the current alternatives suck just as much. No wonder we have so many vandals, if all of our boxes are so absurd. -Silence 14:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the redesigned version. Greatly improved, just about all the problems I had with the box are fixed now. Even the tone is better: stern, yet friendly. Good job, Ashibaka. -Silence 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• But on the other hand, now that the "behave" catchphrase has been completely removed from the template (thank god), the template's name doesn't really having anything to do with its content, and may actually counteract the efforts of those who use it (i.e. a vandal is calmed down by the text, but then sees that the template is called "behave" and gets annoyed at the condescending word). So, I'm switching back to Delete, but move the current template to a new, more fitting name, since I actually like it and it will probably be quite useful to vandal-greeters. -Silence 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This completely fails to encourage taking Wikipedia "seriously". If there are indeed cases of "vandalism" where anything less light-hearted than this would be "too harsh", then consider whether it requires any response at all. I suspect not. EldKatt (Talk) 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and usrfy, silly.  Grue  17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, but I think it needs some rewording, and something better than that stupid happy face graphic. ^BlankVerse 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rewrote to be less silly and more helpful. Ashibaka tock 22:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your excellent improvements have been reverted, so my above comments (after the first one, which still very much applies) are moot regarding the template. As such, strong delete; template will dramatically increase, rather than decrease, the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia. -Silence 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The 'changes' were rubbish. They completely misunderstood the whole point of the template and undermined its effectiveness. As to the suggestion that it would increase the amount of vandalism, obviously you don't spend your time dealing with vandalism. If you did you'd realise how nonsensical the claim is. It is specifically targeted at a type of lightweight vandalism and is designed in those cases to say "very funny, but please don't." Where it has been used in those cases it has worked. It is not intended to be used for real heavy vandalism. You don't seem to understand the different types of vandalism and the different tones that need to be used in dealing with them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In case you didn't notice, when the template is reverted to your version people vote delete (see below). When I edited it a bit, one of the editors who noticed changed his vote to keep (see above). If you want this to be "your" template, userfy it! Ashibaka tock 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Your version is poorly designed, badly laid out and amateurish. If you want to create substandard templates, create them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • In that case I will change my vote. Ashibaka tock 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Gerard Foley 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mirth is an ineffective way of saying "stop joking." Phil Sandifer 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently there is no hope of improving this. Ashibaka tock 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the original/current version. Keep Ashibaka's superior rewording (but encyclopaedia should not be arbitrarily changed to encyclopedia).—jiy (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I would vote "keep" if it was reworded to that alternate version by Ashibaka. That is a huge improvement over the current wording. (I do think it should be spelled "encyclopedia", though - this is Wikipedia, not Wikipaedia, after all. But that's neither here nor there.) Kafziel 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In order to prevent further revert warrings, I forked my version into {{joke}} (which makes sense since my version has nothing to do with "Oh, behave!"). As Jtdirl wants people to vote on the version he made, don't be reluctant! Ashibaka tock 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - IMO, it's good for first time, silly edits. If it doesn't work, then move on to more harsh templates. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since this has been an effective template to deal with those immature vandals who add inappropriate text or enigmatic nonsense to Wikipedia articles. This is not redundant, as this template serves its specific purpose quite well. Sycthos^Talk 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless enough, and some editors find it a good first reminder prior to outright vandalism warnings. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent friendly warning for silly behaviour.Palmiro | Talk 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Jtdirl and above. I can think of quite a few times over the past few years on Wikipedia when I would have used this template had it existed. 172 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Routeboxint

I've been in a bit of a revert war on Interstate 76 (east) about this template (see [6] for its use). I have taken it here as suggested on IRC:

<DavidGerard> KILL IT WITH A STICK. <DavidGerard> that one should go to TFD as a complete eyesore.

I have created an alternate template, currently on Interstate 76 (east) (and on Talk:Interstate 76 (east) if it's reverted again), that includes much of the information with less space, and does not include the huge junction box (which only duplicates information in the exit list further down in the article). A long Interstate can be split into multiple articles like Interstate 80 in New Jersey to keep the size of the article, including the exit list, manageable. --SPUI (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Having twelve articles for I-80 is a very bad idea indeed, as I-80 spans CA, NV, UT, WY, NE, IA, IL, IL, OH, PA, NJ, and NY. When this fragmentation idea is extended to all inter-state interstates, there would be an explosion of little snippets that have no cohesion. The whole point of focusing on the inter-state identity of an interstate (especially the two-digit ones) is to show the regional or national interconnectivity of that road. The purpose of an interstate is to connect traffic flow without regard to the rather arbitrary/antiquated/historically-accidental state lines (or county lines). The purpose of an article for an interstate should be to focus on this national/regional aspect of interstates, not on some local's love-romance with how I-80 in the NYC suburbs in NJ is truly the most special and emotionally dear thing in some fan's life or whether the 17 mile stretch of I-29 in North Dakota was first in the nation to test the such-and-such road experimental pavement. The interstate articles should be focused on the user of that interstate to accomplish a traversal of that interstate (e.g., route planning of which that interstate is merely a portion of the route), not for heaping on some local's praise of his/her section. Sectionalism of interstates should be at best eradicated and at worst de-emphasized. Use of the interstate should be emphasized in the article for that interstate. — optikos 02:56 18 December 2005
  • Furthermore, if such a fragmentation of an interstate article would be pursued, be prepared for someone from Chicagoland to request that the I-80 freeway has an entirely different personality & word-name & toll-payment & governmental ownership than the I-294/I-80 concurrency, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name & governmental ownership than the I-80/I-94 concurrent freeway, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-90 concurrent toll-road, but I-94 (the Dan Ryan) has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-94 concurrency. Be prepared to shatter I-80 into those tiny little articles too. This is further proof that shattering an interstate article into how the locals romance it is unwise, because it is a slippery slope that might have no end. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
• Keep, or fork/split into a "slimmer, trimmer" version. I agree fields are underused in current template, but there really is no happy medium between listing every intersection (I really don't want to do that) and listing bigger junctions (which is what the junction box is there for) except a table. Tables in the current template look more concise. I can do without "Browse State Highways". This particular template wielded properly isn't an eyesore. --Rob 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why we need to list any intersections in the infobox. This information is already in text in the route description and in a table in the exit list; scrolling through the exit list makes it easy to find Interstate junctions (as they're shown with shields). --SPUI (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea of an infobox isn't to contain unique information. Most city infoboxes, for example, contain population and other info that is in the body of the article. The idea is create a concise overview of the interstate highway for people who just want the information quickly. The suggested replacement only contains the endpoints, the establishment date, and the useless links to the adjacent state highways in numerical order. I wouldn't mind if the state highways part were deleted from the template but the rest of routeboxint is fine. Listing the Interstate junctions provides a first level look at the important junctions. The detailed intersection tables are fine, but are a lot to go through for a quick scan. It will be even more cumbersome if all of the intersections, Interstate and state highway, for a coast-to-coast Interstate go onto the main page, or if it is necessary to go to a page for each state to see the Interstate junctions. --Beirne 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. First of all as the template's creator I'm wondering why I wasn't informed of it's TFD. To continue, it has been accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways as well as other roadgeeks. The templates look good and can be shrunken if needed. Interstate 5, Interstate 90, etc. There is much more information packed into this template than in the othertemplate proposed at Talk:Interstate 76 (east). Also, the browse state highways should stay because it is needed for the CA, WA, KY, NH, TX, OH, PA, NJ Interstates so their routeboxes can connect with the individual state routeboxes/ other templates (Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways explains why) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Shrink the damn thing if you don't kill it with a stick. It was three screens long on my laptop - David Gerard 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So what? Is page length a fossil fuel that must be conserved lest we run out? optikos 14:35 18 December 2005
• Keep, but shrink it. It's too wide, and far too long. Something I just recently noticed is the color scheme is sort of ugly. As for the SPUI one, it first of all must be discussed someplace other than here and there. My biggest problem is that any Interstate that goes through three states will be 1/2 taken up by those stupid state highway browsers, which I already hate. I know some of the highway guys like them, but I'd be interested to see what the rest of the Wikipedians think about them. Other than that, I don't have too much of a problem with SPUI's infobox. Maybe just add a bit here or there. However, many articles already use the old one. (In the event of any sort of change, all Routeboxint info that will be lost should be moved to the body of the article.) So therefore, I'm just in favor of cutting down on Template:Routeboxint by doing the following (this should cut it down to a quarter of the original on something like Interstate 84 (east)):
  • Perhaps lower the width.
  • Make interstate junctions much smaller, by limiting the number of junctions (perhaps 5 or so), and by cutting out the milepost column, but perhaps keeping a state abbreviation.
  • Throw away the legend; that sort of detail will be unnecessary in a brief list. A similar legend may be used to color-code the full list in the body of the article.
  • Kill the browse state highways. Perhaps the States Traversed section should link to List of New York state highways or whatever.
  • Remove the seperate east and west terminii sections. Perhaps the brief junction list should include the first, last, and 3 most major in between.

--Chris 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My concern with removing Browse State Highways is that someone on WA-4 can get to I-5... but then how do they get to WA-6? We could split the legend off to a subpage... and I'm not attached to terminii... width needs to be fixed too. If we limit the junctions on the primary interstates to just Primary Interstates, things will be better (we could even cut down more on Interstate 90.) I'll fix Interstate 5 so it does this. If every page had an exit list, I would say throw away the junctions section- but not every page does, so I'm not saying it. But yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

On the state highway box issue, people may make it up to I-5, but I wonder how many people browsing through Washington state highways make it up to I-90? I would suspect that most give up long before that, because there isn't any useful relation between adjacently numbered highways. (And yes, I know north-south, east-west, etc. but the schemes tend to conflict in various ways so it still doesn't work out.) I don't think it makes sense for the projects of states like WA or CA either, although I know that those are different projects out of the scope of this one. The legend probably needs to be there to help interpret the colors if we are going to use them, otherwise we should probably just skip the color-coding altogether because it is going to be too mysterious for most people. I think the terminii are exactly the sort of meaningful pieces of information that should be in the routebox. The provide a visual sense of length, direction, and the route. Every page should have a junction list since a bulleted list is part of the Interstate Project guidelines, but the box provides a convenient overview. Being an overview, though, listing the primaries should be fine and a good compromise. --Beirne 12:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken on the WA-4, I-5, WA-6 thing, but regardless of what each state does, that doesn't mean they need to be in the infobox. (I'm giving up on eliminating them altogether, in favor of compromise.) The legend should at the very least be split off someplace else, but it wouldn't be necessary at all if the junctions list were to be turned into just a brief lists of other interstates it Interchanges with. (as opposed to a list of interchanges with other Interstates; yes there is a difference) If an individual interstate article wishes to use a similar color scheme on it's body interchange list, then obviously the legend can either be in or be linked to in the body. Seperately listing the terminii is uneccsary if the brief junction list is in order. --Chris 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We can't list every single city that for example Interstate 5 goes through. I've changed the routebox on I-5 to be smaller... does it look better? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Shoot. Repeatedly. Big, ugly, and too hard to maintain. --Carnildo 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Patcat88 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to express accuracy Expand the ability to describe east-west/north-south designation on a per-section basis (in one article). Expand the ability to describe established-date on a per-section basis. Neither of these two fields apply to the entire interstate from terminus to terminus for all interstates. Keep the template as is or expand it as I have indicated below. Either way deploy it fully to every interstate without exception. Move factual information that is currently in prose to the template-table's contents to reduce the impact of my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication in the prose of the article. Make all interstate articles have the same look-and-feel, which also will dilute my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • In any interstate template that has an established-date field, what is that date: 1) the date that the oldest section of that roadway was built to interstate specifications opened (even under a different name that was later renamed an interstate, as is common nowadays to build an interstate named as a state-road or US highway then upon completion of the entire route, e.g., I-68 was named US48 for years until the day of its completion at its eastern terminus, I-469 was named Indiana SR469 for years until completion of its northern terminus)? 2) the date that that roadway was first named I-suchandsuch even if it existed twenty years prior to that as a famous freeway? 3) the date that the most recent section of it opened (e.g., it will be misleading to say that I-69 was established in 1967 referring to the oldest part of the Indiana section when it is completed all the way to Mexico one of these next few decades) — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • In any interstate template that has a direction field, the direction often does not apply to the entire length of that interstate. Take I-69 for example. The Indiana section that I lived near as a child is signed as a north-south interstate as one would expect from the odd final digit, but the Michigan section "north" of Lansing is signed as east-west almost as though I-69 is some variation of I-96 (which is what it feels like when driving around Lansing). Conversely, many of the supposedly east-west interstates run either nearly north-south or due north-south in Chicagoland, but are signed as east-west. This leads to much confusion in the Chicagoland area that would be very nice to succintly disclose in a table for I-94 and I-90. Similarly, when driving in a new-to-me metropolitan area, I would love to have any reference Wiki or Rand McNally or otherwise that discloses to me ahead of time which sections/exits of I-465 in Indy or I-410 in San Antonio are signed east-west and which are signed north-south. In all of these cases, having an explicit directionality of signage in the template on a section-by-section basis would be valuable information that is not easily accessible anywhere else other than going the wrong way on the road and then turning around once one figures how the local Dept of Transportion decided to creatively sign this interstate. What would be absolutely perfect would be directionality of signage (e.g., N-S versus E-W) sitting right next to degrees from North from the compass between two exits point-to-point, such as for the Dan Ryan in Chicago: E-W/0°-180°; or for I-69 east of Lansing: E-W/89°-271°. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • Move more factual prose to these template tables, so that information does not get buried in some fan's touting of the verbose praise of how this section is named the Whosywhatsit Memorial Expressway. I have recently visited every interstate article. I have noticed way too much variance from article to article. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • Yes, the Interstate articles are not uniform- one of the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways is to fix that. I'm all for making Interstate articles as comprehensive as possible, but since there is opposition, this is not possible. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a rather useful summary of an interstate highway. That being said, it is way too big. How about placing the legend on a separate page (perhaps a subpage of the WikiProject), and linking to it? And something needs to be done about the "browse state highways" section -- it's attracted way too much criticism. Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a great summary, and I've been wondering why they've been dissapearing. I utilised the core of it for Template:UK motorway routebox and would be mortified if that was TFD'd. Erath 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I suggest some bits be split into different templates. Lots of the things in this don't belong in an infobox, but are still useful in template form. --Golbez 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler MC top

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

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.

Template:Spoiler top and Template:Spoiler bottom

Unlike {{spoiler2}} and {{spoiler-red}}, these used to have a distinct purpose, but they've been obsolesced by the revival and widespread use of {{endspoiler}}. The javascript mentioned on Template talk:Spoiler top doesn't work anymore, but if anyone's really interested, I can fix it for the standard {{spoiler}}/{{spoiler-about}}/{{spoiler-other}}/{{solution}} - {{endspoiler}} series. —Cryptic (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obsolete template. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I guess, but I hope someone who wants to remove these will go through and replace them rather than effectively removing spoiler notices from these articles. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}}, respectively (due to the likelihood that editors will attempt to use their superseded counterparts). —Lifeisunfair 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair. —Slicing (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why do we have spoiler templates anywho? I mean, we're an encyclopedia, not a goddamn fan message board. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Because we're a well-mannered repository of information, not a bunch of curmudgeonly swine who take delight in spoiling people's enjoyment of carefully-constructed serial drama. We want people to come to Wikipedia to look stuff up, not to avoid us like the plague because we incontinently splurge Too Much Information across the page in reply to a simple query. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair. Courtland 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't get the use of spoiler warnings either. What do readers expect when they visit a film page, a summary of the first 30 minutes followed by "Will Jack fall for Emma, or will Mr Robinson's evil plans stand in the way of true love?" Stevage 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair —Phil | Talk 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler-red

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

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I wasn't intending this to be used for main namespace yet, I just wanted to use it as an example on Spoiler talk. Is there a way to move this into user space and still have it work? If not, can you just give me two days so my examples of what I'm talking about in Spoiler talk make sense? Thanks. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK. Userfied to User:Cyde/Spoiler-red. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Maintained

• Delete: Copying my reasoning from the Pump: In effect, the template seems to be saying The following users are watching this page. Please clear any changes with them first. I'd content that the less experienced the editor who reads the template, the more likely they are to interpret it that way. Conversely, more experienced editors are likely to respond with a "So what?" I'd really like to have the purpose of the template explained clearly. Casual vandals are unlikely to read talk pages. The listed users will have the article on their watchlists and will spot and fix vandalism just as quickly without the template. Non-vandals who want to make good-faith edits should not have to refer (or defer) to self-styled experts who, thanks to their watchlists, will soon see any changes anyway.. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Comment: Rather than this knee-jerk reaction to delete, you could have suggested an alternate wording that you thought would not communicate what you feel is a message of "ownership". Instead, you chose not to participate in any discussion and move directly to delete. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:22
• Keep: There should be enough reasons in the last few days to have a necessity for these kind of persons thus implementing something like this in articles at least to make vandals that aren't caught by RC Patrols and else be stopped by this method. Lincher 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. That is NOT the intention of this template at all, and I am really getting tired of explaining this for people who can't bother themselves to read any of the past discussion. The template is acting as a contact list of people who have identified themselves as either knowing the content of the article or knowing its sources. It is for any reader who wants to confirm the facts in an article, or confirm its sources. It has nothing to do with "ownership" of this article, so please stop pushing this ridiculous apocalyptic notion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:14
  • Replying to these three comments. A) I have not used the word "ownership"; please respond to the stated reasons for listing here rather than continuing a previous argument of which I was not part. B) I have not suggested an alternate wording because I believe that there is no need for any such template. and C) Please explain how the template is going to be any more effective against vandalism than having the same group of users add the article to their watchlist. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You were not part of any discussion. You moved directly to delete the template within the very same message that you misrepresented the intention of the template. That has been your only part in the discussion, "I don't like it, so I will move to delete it." It is NOT the intention of this template to be "effective against vandalism". As I have already stated 3 times on different pages (which I'm assuming you've read...), the intention of this template is to do exactly what it says: let the readers know that there are people watching it for vandalism, maintaining it, and who can be contacted regarding any factuality/verifiability concerns the readers have. As I have also repeatedly stated, people tend to check their email more than their watchlist. So, having a direct link to email a useful contact on an article is very useful for the reader. I have already gotten emails from readers and new users verifying with me that arcticles' content is accurate, so it is already working exactly as I had intended. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:37
      • Articles have talk pages were such concerns can be raised in full view of all those with an interest in the article. Can you not at least concede that moving this discussion to the talk pages of individual users is open to potential abuse. I raised the vandalism question because it was part of one of the keep votes. You have raised it again yourself just now ("there are people watching it for vandalism"). Finally, please stop the bolded uppercase shouting, which does nothing to further your arguments. BTW, I check my watchlist far more often than I check my e-mails. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It is not shouting, it is concerned emphasis. Please stop misrepresenting this template on people's talk pages to get them to vote in your favor, calling this template "the latest item of worship." — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:56
• Speedy Keep - Can this thing be ended as soon as possible so the annoying TfD text can go away from the pages the template is used on? Thanks. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Clarifications: This template provides direct contact to email someone, something with which all readers are familiar, rather than assuming that all readers will know what the "history" tab is for, how to check for significant contributors who thus might know something about the article (ie: looking for non-minor, non-bot, significant edits). Besides the contact, one of the main points is to let readers know that the page is being maintained by people, that it is being watched for vandalism, and that some people will hold themselves accountable for its contents. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
• Also note, anyone can remove anyone from the template's list of users, if those users become inactive, since the point is to provide a list of contacts and a list of people who are volunteering their time to protect the article against vandalism and are knowledgeable about its facts/sources. The point is not to provide a list of "contributors". If you feel the template is sending the wrong message, please suggest alternate wordings. This is more productive than typing 7 letters.. (ie "Delete"). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
• Keep. Filiocht is quite right—experienced editors (and even not-so-experienced ones) will happily ignore the template. But it is inteneded primarily to benefit the casual reader, who has no idea how Wikipedia works or how he might go about questioning the veracity of a statement. An obvious "email this person if you have questions" box is quite useful in such cases. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template cruft - the casual reader will figure out, by looking at all the buttons above (That's what I did when I was one). --Gurubrahma 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So you are assuming that all readers will understand the system as easily/quickly as you claim to have. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Keep. Let's see it in action for a bit, give it a chance to improve, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Use it. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Best new idea in a long time. Creating a visable presence on an article is a way to make soft-tiers of users (not unlike the 3-tiers of "anon->user->admin", but on a per-article basis, and "soft-tier") which will add stability and discourage the natural processes of entropy. It's the closest thing to a traditional encyclopedia "signed article" but maintaining the openess of Wikipedia. It certainly does not over-ride the Wikipedia Constitutional rules about "ownership". --Stbalbach 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We must keep the cabal as secret. --Peter McConaughey 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What??? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 15:19
• Keep. The wording on the template may need to be altered so that it can't be misinterpreted as 'ownership' of an article, but overall its a good idea. Agnte 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. —Locke Cole 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources and references should be provided in the article itself. The entire idea of Wikipedia is to judge facts and contributions, not contributors. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course the article should have sources. We're not trying to judge contributors. Even if it lists sources, it can still be vandalized, and readers can still have questions about ambiguities or other things related to the topic. That is why it is important to show that people are watching the content, can be contacted regarding any questions, and do hold themselves accountable for the content. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 19:44
    • If the article is unclear or incomplete, you make it more clear and you complete it. The only way this template would be of any help is if the template said, "The following persons have volunteered to clarify and expand the article if it seems unclear or incomplete. Feel free to share your concerns with them." But then again, isn't that the purpose of a talk page in the first place? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've used this to mark pages that I'm interested in and know a fair bit about, to indicate that I can probably answer or address whatever questions or concerns people might have. Perhaps it should be reworded to say something like "If you have questions about this article or its sources, the following users may be able to help: Example (talk · contribs · email), misterhand43 (talk · contribs · email), Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · email)." Or something like that—the point being to list helpful contacts that someone may not otherwise find, not to indicate any measure of ownership or control. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  I've changed the wording as per this suggestion. Agnte 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and reword as per Mirv, to clarify that no ownership is implied. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Might need some improvement to remove any implication of article "ownership" but I like this template and the ideas behind it. Let's give it a chance to develop. android79 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a good idea. But I agree with android79.algumacoisaqq 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've always thought this feature should be built in to the Mediawiki software. I'm glad I found it.
• Strong keep, per everybody else. Perhaps needs tweaking to alleviate Android's concerns, but otherwise good.--Sean|Black 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Matt Crypto 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No matter how the message is worded, it's going to smack of asserting ownership over an article and discourage others from contributing. Questions about an article should be made on the article's talk page, not directly to the maintainers. —Psychonaut 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please cite the guideline/policy that suggests the statement you just made. I (and I'm sure others) have been contacted multiple times about different articles. The sole purpose isn't simply to act as contact points, though, and your statement that the wording cannot be fixed is baseless. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 23:28
    • The guideline about posting questions and comments on the article talk page is called "common sense". As a collaborative encyclopedia, a reader is far more likely to get a useful response if he posts a public message rather than a private one. To suggest that a reader do otherwise also implies that the editors named on the template have more authority over the article than other editors. —Psychonaut 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • What about the current form of the message? There is no way that your original complaint is true now. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 20:01
• Keep. Jacoplane 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Use of the template subtly implies ownership, even if it is not explicitly worded as such. Sources should be in the body of the article. There should never be a need to contact anyone to verify information; the article should stand on its own. Use of this template will encourage people to not make self-standing articles. Kwertii 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • You are stating a lot of "shoulds", which would be fine, except Wikipedia currently doesn't exist in a perfect state. I am simply acknowledging that, whereas you are hindering its development. An article can be filled with sources, but a reader still has no reason to trust its contents, since the article can easily be vandalized. This template lets them have some trust in the article, or at least contact someone who can verify information presented in the article, information which may not be laid out in any sources (for example, if the article was vandalized). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 00:10
• Possibly reword, but Keep. On the other hand, I'd like clear criteria for its use: it ought to be clear that multiple individuals can place it on the same talk page, and that it shouldn't be placed on highly controversial articles, where the issue of implied "ownership" could be much more serious. For example, I'd be very suspicious of the motives of someone who unilaterally claimed to be "maintaining" Libertarianism or Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a great idea and long overdue. If you don't like the wording in the template, then build a consensus for changing it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Jmabel about avoiding it on controversial topics, but its use on most articles is undoubtedly a good idea. Brisvegas 09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - per Kwertii. Also, any question someone might ask these editors is far better placed on the talk page, where everbody can see it (and profit from the answer). The argument that this is mostly to help newcomers who aren't familiar with Wiki isn't convincing to me: The template is supposed to go on the talk page, right? So if a newcomer figures out how to read the talk page, I'm sure they will figure out how to post their question there. Plus, I personally too check my watchlist far more often then my e-mails. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are multiple benefits of this template. You have only addressed one of those, ignoring the rest. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete readers do not want to see the nicknames of the editors - it totally ruins the image of the "serious encyclopaedia". Izehar (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On what is this claim based? Nobody has to edit the article to add their name to the list of knowledgeable people. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Keep this template might need some minor word revisions, but the idea behind it is good, and its meant mainly to show who knows the most about the article. Magicmonster 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think I like the idea behind this. It gives people an idea of who to ask if they need help working on an article, and moreover lets people know who to turn to if they encounter something that they don't think should be there.

--Vortex 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. See how the experiment works. If it's a flop, it's easy to delete later. Hal Jespersen 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Hal Jespersen. I would like to see how this develops, and if it becomes a problem, I'll happily delete it myself. – ClockworkSoul 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, could be quite useful. Alphax ^τεχ 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per previous supporters of this template. I like it and intend to use it myself on articles I've created or made major contributions to. -- Cjmarsicano 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons well-stated above by others. I see no harm. Let's see of the experiment works Vaoverland 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Ok, first, I see very little advantage to it compared to the history tab and watchlists from active editors. However, I think that it exposes us to some dangers. First, it implies an expert status to some editors, whether that is the intent or not. Second, it suggests some form of ownership of an article, that an article is a particular editor's playground or fenced in yard, although that is probably not the intent of the creator. Finally, if we use the template strictly as the author does intend, to indicate an emergency contact number, as it were, on the vandal playgrounds, there would be a creeping suggestion that all articles need such angels, such protectors, and such ministers and advocates. So, I see three reasons why this template does "harm" and no distinct harm that it cures. Rather than saying, "Please don't use this template," I have to say delete, because I think we would need to demonstrate an acute need and prove that this template is a wholly satisfactory curing of that need before we should willingly face the three dangers I list above. Geogre 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of advantages to it. For one, if there's a sign that says someone is watching over the article, it means two things: One is that either a vandal's desire to vandalize could be deterred, or quickly reverted. The other is that a more civilized user wishing to contribute to or correct an article can do so in the knowledge that there's at least one person other himself concerned enough with the topic to wish to maintain it, and can do so without worry. So, it seems to me that whatever objections you have to the template pale in comparison to how mcuh good this template could do. --Cjmarsicano 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Following your logic, vandals will then eagerly vandalize pages without the notice, because they think no one is watching them. Maybe we need a general notice on all pages stating that users are watching every page. The current template which names names and excludes other users has too many negative effects, and too few positive ones. -- Rmrfstar 02:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is not to deter vandals. The point is to let readers know we are protecting the article against vandals. 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched, so it will be fairly easy for vandals to find unwatched pages. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:13

• Delete - remind me what is the point of the talk page again... If someone has a question regarding an article then that can be left on the article's talk page. Moving this flow of information off to user talk pages sounds counter-ituitive to me and only serves to setup cliques. Thanks/wangi 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
• Delete useless: duplicates already existing functionality (history/talk).  Grue  17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have only addressed one of its benefits. There are several, and they combine to make this template better than any individual other item. That's why it is necessary. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
• Strong Keep This is extremely helpful when you have a question to ask about some statement made in an article, but nobody is reading the Talk page anymore. Remember, this is a huge encyclopedia, and people might miss important edits on their watchlist. It's totally harmless and does not claim ownership over anything. Ashibaka tock 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This template appears to have been made just a few days ago, on the 13th of December 2005. It adds articles to the Maintained articles category, also created around the same time. I note that there appear to be at least 141 articles which are now in that category. While I did not check each one, I did check a few, and each has the template, and I saw at least 5 different editors listed as a contact for that article, that is, that multiple editors chose to add the template. I therefore conclude that this template serves a need, and is already being adopted and has the potential to be in widespread use. Note also that as other editors have commented, non wikipedians may not be familiar with the mechanics of looking up article history to determine who a good contact person might be. I do think that refinement of the wording to clarify that it's a person that wants to be helpful, not an "owner", that is being listed, might still be in order (although I note people have already been working on it), but that is not an argument for Delete. NB, I am inclusionist. ++Lar 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, attempts at ownership of articles are a direct and egtregious violation of Wikiquette. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Please do not voice your disapproval of the template by deleting it from talk pages. See Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature. --Stbalbach 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a clear case of WP:POINT. Hey Zoe, how about waiting for this TfD to finish before removing it from pages? —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's nothing of the sort. WP:POINT specifically means doing something you don't actually advocate to make a point; it doesn't mean someone doing something someone else doesn't like - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You'll be needing to point me to the part of this template that claims ownership over articles. —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It labels it with names - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So, you've violated guidelines to correct what you believe are "violations of guidelines". Interesting... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 08:27
    • Guidelines versus policy ... which will win? Oh yes, consensus! - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, why do you say that's POINT instead of BOLD? After all, we're to be bold in editing. Now, what if there is a topic of controversy. I'm working on, let's say, Oroonoko, and someone has a contrary point of view. That person slaps on the Maintained template and proclaims herself the patroller of Oroonoko. I can't remove it? I can't say, "This person doesn't actually understand Aphra Behn and certainly doesn't understand this novel?" Instead, I (if I were less known to the community) would be the presumed intruder. I would have to justify to everyone around that I do know the subject, that I am a scholar of Restoration and Augustan literature? All because someone with a controversial view slapped on a template? We don't have to wait for hypothetical harms: these comments show that it is already occurring. Second case: someone puts the maintained template on Oroonoko and lists me. I don't want to be contacted. I'll fix the article any time people mess it up, but I don't want to chat with every college freshman assigned the novel in a class who wants me to write his paper for him. I don't want the members of the Aphra Behn Society asking me my real name so that they can chat with me or bother me at the next conference. Too bad, eh? I either have to be a second rate voice on the article, or I have to be Mr. Sociable, and all because this template says so? Geogre 13:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I added a guideline for that to the template's talk page. See how productive work is accomplished? If you think that guideline is not good enough, please, suggest another! This is much more productive than just assuming that the template will only be placed on controversial articles and that it therefore should not exist. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 14:29
  • How about an indication that there must be consensus on a talk page for the list of patrollers before the template can be used? That way, if I see that I am listed, I have to agree to it, and if I see that someone with a fancy for an article but not expertise has become annointed, I can object. At least that would forestall this set of harms. It doesn't change my view, however. I think we have more templates than users can even find, much less use, and I think this one accomplishes few benefits while exposing us to damage. However, a requirement of consensus would prevent this being used as a weapon in an RFC or its being used to promote a controversialist's campaign. Geogre 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this template encourages people to be more responsible for certain articles and also gives some increased sense of verification to those articles that are more likely to be accurate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not totally sold on this as a great idea, but like many above I think it's worth continuing the experiment for a while. I certainly wish users would stop --pending the outcome of consensus-seeking discussions such as this-- the petulant deletions of these templates where they have been used. It's really contemptuous. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have not used this template myself; it being brand new, most editors presumably have never heard of it. But it seems like a possibly useful concept, one that I can imagine using myself. Allowing editors to volunteer themselves as resources for particular pages might often be useful; and is not the same as imposing a requirement to get permission for edits. Give it a chance! If this is around and non-productive for six months, renominate it. But don't kill the idea after a week. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I originally liked the idea of using this template, but I see now that I was only giving in to satisfy my feelings of ownership of a few articles. Nevermind that. There are very few good effects of this template. Posting a comment on a talk page doesn't need to be any easier and discussion of an article should be kept on Wikipedia for everyone to read, for obvious reasons. Also, as was said above, the articles should be completely (within Wikipedia) stand-alone, such a template encourages and expresses the idea that an article can be confusing, or incomplete etc. and that a reader can email a contributor if they have any questions. -- Rmrfstar 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have ignored all the benefits of the template. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete as gross policy violation - connotes ownership of the article, however it may have been intended. I've kludged onto it that it does not connote such, but it still needs to die - David Gerard 19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Current version rates a neutral - I'm still not sure it's a good idea at all, but it doesn't make me want to shoot it - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is nonsenseible. You said yourself that the wording just needs to be changed. But, instead, you'd rather delete it? Without even giving it a chance? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 19:27
    • Changed to neutral after discussion and new version - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However sugarcoated the words, it is a disinvitation to those not in the club to edit the article. In order to view the template, the user must navigate to the talk page anyway--interested editors can watch the talk page, which is how I've gotten "in touch" with the editors of specific articles in the past. Whatever marginal benefit emailing individual users about article content has (and since when was that such a great idea?) it is countered by putting this perimeter around articles. Note: this disinvitation is inherent in the very idea of making a list of editors, so for me it's not a matter of "fixing the wording". Demi ^T/_C 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a list of editors. Nobody needs to add a single word to the article to be able to add themselves to the template. It is only recommended that they have knowledge of the contents, for the template to be useful, since that is the point of the template: to be useful to readers. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:42
• Neutral although I respect the reasoning behind the deletion votes, some template like this may be suitable for topics where popular understanding and serious scholarship may be at odds. Such articles may have unsuitably long talk pages. Well intentioned readers sometimes insert information in the belief that some omission is an oversight (for example, by adding "January 6" to [[Joan of Arc|Joan of Arc's] birthdate). Sometimes a notion gains a popular following even though the academic community rejects it unanimously. See scalping. The problem with this template is its potential for abuse by partisan editors. Durova 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep we needed a template like this. QQ 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Filiocht had it right all the way up there, and Geogre makes some good points too. "Active monitors" ought to be obvious from the talk page anyway, and will have it on their watchlist. If people want to know about sources or anything else, they can leave a query on the talk page. The template doesn't need tweaking, it needs to be disposed of. --ajn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several, and they combine to make it better than any one thing currently offerred. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete - Geogre has very persuasively demonstrated the potential problems that could arise with this template. Worldtraveller 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • His criticisms were of an older version of the template. Can you please look at the new version??? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Of course there can be problems, but that's why there are guidelines, which the community can add to. Why trash the whole thing when several people obviously think it useful? Please assume good faith, I am in no way trying to take ownership of an article. Have you seen the new version of the template? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 02:42
    • It is possible to assume that your every intention is aboveboard, forthright, well-meaning, and completely without guile or malice, while still believing that you are wrong. Nothing about the former precludes the latter. Nothing about the latter indicates an abandonment of the former. Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has the potential to create more problems than it solves. Zocky 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So you won't even give it chance? You'd rather delete it for its "potential problems", than try to fix those problems? They call this a "discussion" at the top of the page. It really is a joke. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 05:24
• Delete - no benefit - articles should stand on their own - if they need sources or clarification, add them, don't list yourself as a "maintainer"(i.e. according to FOLDOC: "The person responsible for coordinating changes"); discussion about articles should be publically viewable on the wiki, not in private, non-archived, hidden discussion via email. This is a basic violation of the transparency of Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Please be aware that the TfD notice for this template has been removed, subtly hidden in "noinclude" tags (so it will appear to people checking it directly that it has the notice, but will fail in it's intended purpose of publicizing the discussion) and made effectivly unreadable (via a application of "small" tags to the already very small text) multiple times. (I only reverted the "small" trick just now; otherwise, it has been in place the whole time this TfD has been running - if that's not abuse of the process, I'm not sure what it is.) Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 3, part 2. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Im not defending the use of small fonts in this case and had no part in it, but small fonts are used all over Wikipedia in official and unofficial capacity, to say it was "hidden" and made unreadable is an inaccurate portrayal.--Stbalbach 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Making it small was just an attempt to make it less annoying, since others were complaining. Maybe the TFD folks could bother to improve the notice's appearance. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:57
• Keep. This template is a novel idea. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'd like to use it. Right now I have a hacked up list of interests. I like how User:Jacoplane has his stuff organized instead. <>< tbc 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete History/talk/watchlist/community collaboration pages is enough IMHO. Assuming that "more people read their email than the watchlists" is wrong in my case at least --- when I get an email from the Wikipedia, I will usually perceive this as a "push" attempt to make me deal with some WP issues when I have my daytime activities pressure on me for doing other things (yes, I know that I can autosort them all into a special folder). The watchlist is a "pull" interface, which I may prefer to use whenever I like. Also, the template usage can easily become stale and mislead others (making them think --- well, if it's maintained, I shouldn't bother reviewing the changes too hard)... I do see the benefits for some of the users as stated by them, but personally I feel the negative arguments outweigh them. For the active supporters of either delete or keep, please don't jump the decision and don't abuse the process (removing the TfD from pages/the small font trick/whatever). BACbKA 10:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You've only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several. They combine to make this template better than any one thing currently available. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
• Delete, per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The nominator was complaining about an older version of this template. Have you even looked at the changes that have been made? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
• Delete - even with new wording, it still strongly conveys an assertion of ownership or, at the least, an assertion that some editors are more equal than others (with no guarantee, as they are self-appointed, that they are genuinely worth contacting regarding verification or sources). What if a POV warrior applies this tag? Tearlach 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - To find notable contributors look at the history instead. Connotates ownership/elitism. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this does not imply ownership, merely that stated user is an expert in this field.  ALKIVAR™ 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment And how do we know that's true? Tearlach 00:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

template:Vwatched

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

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

Surely you realize that GWB will still have to be proteted from vandalism when it gets out of control, completely regardless of whether the tag is here. There is no "other option", this is just a poorly-thought-out and meaningless overlabeling that will in the end only cause more vandalisms and subsequent page protections for every article that ever uses it, GWB included. -Silence 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I think this will actually encourage vandals, while distracting readers, hopefully these situations will get resolved by the proposed Semi Protection Policy. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Silence. Alai 06:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, along with template:Maintained. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Psychonaut. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. RIDDLE TIME!! You have two pristine picture windows in stores on opposite sides of the street. One picture window has a big sign on it saying, "Do not throw glass through this window." Which gets broken first? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vandalism is frustrating always but we don't give certain articles special status. In fact, vandalism to high profile articles might be preferable to vandalism to obscure articles since it is reverted faster and more surely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No ugly box templates should be permanent. In addition, it is incorrect, as I have never seen an admin apply a "one bit of vandalism, you're blocked" concept. [[Sam Korn]] 13:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BEANS. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep iff it is used only on talk pages. Otherwise, delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (creator): Consensus is clearly against the template; as the creator, I don't oppose speedy deletion at this point. // Pathoschild 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:BEANS. Alphax ^τεχ 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have Speedy deleted it(and it's asociated category) on request of the author(see above). We can close this now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television 3

Delete, not used _→AzaToth 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Aza Ashibaka tock 00:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

December 13

Template:XD6

Experimental deletion is not an approved Wikipedia process, and implementation of it is not appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of the ever increasing crap on WP, this is a GOOD IDEA (probably one of the best). I just found it, but now your telling me not to use it!! Weird!--Light current 23:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking of Wikipedia content is not an acceptable method of getting articles deleted. The CSD and AfD processes are the only methods approved by Wikipedia consensus. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as long as Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is actively debated. Interesting experimental project that doesn't seem to harm Wikipedia, and might currently even take work away from AfD for pages that are kept and expanded because of the use of this template. Kusma (討論) 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• strong delete as per nom. Debate all you like, don't try to use without consensus. DES ^(talk) 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no reason to debate deleting only this template, and deleting it independently of consensus at Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is probably a waste of time. So long as that project is ongoing, the template needs to exist so that it can be discussed. Deleting it now is less removal of a template and more commentary on that project. I think it's a bit inappropriate to pull their template out from under them, so long as it's not being used inappropriately. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But is is being used inappropriately. it is being used on actual articles, therby blanking them, which is a form of vandalism. Look at the histroy of Kathal, Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, Quelt, Selita Ebanks, Astonish, and Wind Blossom for a start. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is ridiculous. one out of 5 templates? please discuss on the talk page of WP:XD. I consider this a direct slap in the face, unappreciated. had you actually used the template, this would all be over by now. apologies for initial harsh reaction. ∴ here…♠ 06:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Use of this template is a violation of Wikipedia consensus, and will be reverted when encountered. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
    • I disagree, and have solicited continuation of this conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Experimental_Deletion#XD_and_consensus. ∴ here…♠ 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful project for experimentation, generating some good ideas. On the whole, not damaging. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment If the XD project made it a project policy not to use this template on actual articles until and unless XD recieves community consensus support, I would not object to the existance of this template and similar oence for discussion and testing (although they might better live in project space). But it is being used on actual articels at the moment, and that amounts to blanking vandalism in effect if not in intent. See the histroy of Kathal, Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, Quelt, Selita Ebanks, Astonish, and Wind Blossom for recent exampels of use. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • replied on User_talk:DESiegel#WP:XD_issues. ∴ here…♠ 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Copied thread back here DES ^(talk) 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Does the fact that the use of {{XD6}} in each of these cases saved significant work for wikipedians mean anything to you? What about the fact that absolutely no information was lost, but rather was easily kept and expanded? Furthermore, no admin interaction was at all necessary. Again, how is using xd6 different from removing a potentially disputed paragraph from an existing article? ∴ here…♠ 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Blanking an entire article is generally considerd an unacceptable form of edit, and this is what the use of {{XD6}} involved at least in all cases I saw. And it didn't save work, all it did was delay that work and push it off on others -- in this case on me, when i took the proper actions on 6 articles, listing a couple on AfD, expanding and fixing a couple, etc. Still looks like blanking vandalism to me, albiet propably well intentioned balnking. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would add thatr removign an entire paragraph without discussion on a talk page is often frowned upon, but I maintain that the analogy is too flawed to be useful. DES ^(talk) 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - by definition, edits in good faith are not vandalism - this project is very upfront about what it's doine - nothing is hidden - nothing is lost - if anyone objects to the use of the template on a particular page, they simply revert and that's that - so where is the harm? - this is an encyclopedia, not a bureauracracy Tedernst | talk 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't care whether this is kept or not, but please stop putting this and {{XD7}} into Category:Pages for deletion. Experimental deletion thingies are all fine and dandy, but not if they break the non-experimental method. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These templates are an important part of deletion reform. How will other methods become approved by Wikipedia consensus if we don't try them? rspeer 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Subst:NPOV and Template:Subst:Prettytable

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

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

• I have speedy-deleted Template:Subst:NPOV as patent nonsense. DES ^(talk) 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• If I recall correctly, Prettytable is the name of a CSS class in MediaWiki, so it is no longer needed. Delete, preferably speedily if someone feels like ignoring rules. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 23:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per CSD G1 and/or CSD G2 (and or perhaps CSD G7 (§2) per anon only creator (bend the rules)) (anon created, only user) _→AzaToth 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. We can close this now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pittsburgh Universities

Delete: Cumbersome; Better served by Category:Universities and colleges in Pittsburgh 141.151.176.253 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now; it's not better served by the category because the template is not organized alphabetically. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep much more useful than a Category. JG of Borg 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the category could be broken into three subcats to mirror the functionality of this eyesore. Phil Sandifer 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Aren't templates like this the only reason categories exist? -Silence 19:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:FFII

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

• Delete not used in articles anymore. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as now pointless, with most links going to the same page. Kusma (討論) 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons mentioned above. warpedmirror (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

December 12

Template:GFW

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

• Delete. Completely useless. -- Dpark 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• The history said "translated from Chinese", so I guess this comes from zh:Template:BlockByGFW, which is used in "External links" sections to warn that some links might be inaccessible to mainland readers due to censorship (and links to proxy server etc. so people learn how to possibly evade the block). Even assuming that that is the intent, I don't think we need this here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think it actually means that PRC people may not be able to view the article, rather than saying that they aren't allowed to view the article. I'll change the wording to make it more clear. Borisblue 07:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  Wait a minute, how are Chinese users going to see this template if the article is blocked? D'oh. Striked out keep vote. Borisblue 07:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, some discussion at zhwiki about the template. This template is useful to notify readers and editors that not everyone can view it, and if possible, prevent to use some "keyword" filtered by the Great Firewall to prevent to blocking. This is not "commanding the people from..." — Yaohua2000 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dubious whether this can be very accurately placed, and pretty useless regardless. Lord Bob 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. My insecure self think that this is more of a "hey eat this ChiCom, we're gonna announce to the world how evil you are" template than a truly informative one. People blocked by the GFW won't be able to see this template at all, and those who can prove this template wrong. Also, the GFW blocks the entire wikimedia site and all its sister sites (and I must imagine all the leechers too) so there doesn't exist a solution of not using certain "keywords" to bypass the GFW. If this template should survive deletion it should be pasted without fail to every single nook and cranny of Wikipedia. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: That sounds funny. But it is technically incorrect. Because Chinese government only block those wikimedia server in Korea, wikimedia DNS replies the IP of Korea server to those users in China, so people are not able to view wikimedia site. But if a user modify his DNS configuration, add some custom lines to /etc/hosts and redirect all requests to Korean servers to those servers in North America or Europe, it will be bypass the blocking. You can whois my current IP, it is from mainland China. This is so called third blocking of Wikipedia from China. But it is not the all of Great Firewall. Great Firewall uses keyword filter to prevent user view sensitive sites for normal websites, even if you modify hosts file and redirect the web request to servers not blocked, you have to face the keyword check. Unless you are over a secured connection. This software official named "金盾", it is reported that the techinical and hardware for the keyword filtering is from Cisco. —221.196.188.187 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Chinese to whom this warning applies won't be able to see it anyway, and those who can see it probably won't care as it doesn't affect them. —Psychonaut 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To the user(s) above saying this is meant to tell people not to use certain keywords on certain articles... the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Nobody is going to tell me what words I can and cannot use. If the Chinese government doesn't like that, tough - maybe the Chinese people should get a new government. But that's not my problem, and it's not anyone else's problem on Wikipedia. Kafziel 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valuable to chinese readers and other interested parties. Sam Spade 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The only article this template is currently in use on appears to be Falun Gong, and the Chinese government's attitude toward Falun Gong is clearly described in that article already. However, any Wikipedia article might be inaccessible to users in China (see Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China), so I don't see what the point of this template is. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 66.167.138.184 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Delete per Psychonaut. Andrew Levine 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete should be used on every page. Also has a NPOV tone. Stevage 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Future game/yearcvg

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

• Delete. Not used, impossibly unwieldy name, and seems useless. -- Dpark 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Dpark, the / makes it look like a sub template. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Current Holiday

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

• Delete. This thing's just silly. -- Dpark 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. --Thelb⁴ 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Weasel words

Delete: Duplicate of Template:Weasel. This duplicate template was recently created and based on an older version of the original weasel template. We've been debating whether to use the term "weasel words" or "generic attributions" (or something else entirely), and rather than wait for a concensus, Crotalus horridus created this one specifically as a "Competing weasel words template". It's an intentional duplicate, which we do not need. Dpark 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. All ten articles this template is currently used on were previously using Template:weasel, and were converted to this new duplicate by Crotalus horridus. -- Dpark 16:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I felt that this was a better solution than engaging in a template edit war. This way, if people feel that a harsher weasel words warning is justified for some articles than for others, it can be tailored to the page as desired. Crotalus horridus 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There wasn't really an edit war going on, though. We were having a poll to decide. -- Dpark 16:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Please Note. Crotalus horridus agreed that since the conflict with Template:Weasel seems resolved, a redirect is appropriate. I've removed the TfD tag, since it seems a redirect has definite potential to be useful and poses no problem that I can see. -- Dpark 20:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:65xx processors

This navigation template is too unwieldy to be of much use. Despite the title, it includes not only processors in the 65xx family, but all of the various integrated circuits produced by MOS Technology. That name may not be familiar to you, but they were very big in the early 1980s (MOS products ran the Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Apple II family, and a bunch of arcade machines) and having a navigation template like this is like having one for all Intel or NVIDIA chips ever released. I have created smaller navigational templates for each category (video/sound chips, CPUs, etc.) and this template is now orphaned. Delete. Crotalus horridus 14:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I also created Category:MOS Integrated Circuits in case someone really does want to see all of this in one place. 168.30.196.106 15:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the title does not conform to WP standards, so it will have to be replaced. *sigh* --Wernher 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There was nothing wrong with the template as it was. It was not overly big or intrusive (it's a horizontal template, placed at the bottom of articles). The new arrangement is clearly too fine-grained (one of the new templates links to just ONE article, with no potential for growth). I am concerned that Crotalus horridus is making a lot of changes on the basis of personal taste rather than because they are clear, unambiguous improvements. (Note: I have never edited the template). Mirror Vax 19:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I responded to Mirror Vax on his Talk page. Crotalus horridus 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Mirror Vax on this one (even though I did some editing on one of the suggested replacement templates earlier tonight, I might add). I originally made the 65xx template to facilitate navigation among the quite diverse, but not extremely extensive, range of MOS chips; I suspect some readers might know vagely of the processors but perhaps not of the support chips. BTW, after Crotalus' recent edits to the template, it actually got more tidy. :-) As for the template's name, it is of absolutely no concern to readers. --Wernher 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User Capitalist

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

• As you are the creator and sole contributor to this template I have speedily deleted this, see WP:CSD specifically item number 7 under "General".--Sean|Black 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

• Template linking and transclusion check – Toolforge tool to see which pages are transcluded but not linked from or to a template
• WhatLinksHereSnippets.js – user script that allows for template use to be viewed from the Special:WhatLinksHere page
• AutoWikiBrowser – semi-automatic editor that can replace or modify templates using regular expressions
• Bots – robots editing automatically. All tasks have to be approved before operating. There are currently five bots with general approval to assist with implementing TfD outcomes:
  • AnomieBOT – substituting templates via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster
  • SporkBot – general TfD implementation run by Plastikspork
  • PrimeBOT – general TfD implementation run by Primefac
  • BsherrAWBBOT – general TfD implementation run by Bsherr
  • PearBOT II – general TfD implementation run by Trialpears

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

• Template:Infobox_tropical_cyclone2024 March 10 – Infobox_tropical_cyclone ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Infobox_storm2024 March 10 – Infobox_storm ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

• Merge into the singular {{infobox ship}} (currently a redirect):
  • Template:Infobox_ship_begin2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_career2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_characteristics ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_class_overview2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_class_overview ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_image2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_image ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_service_record2022 April 30 – Infobox_service_record ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

    I have hacked Module:Infobox ship which implements ship infoboxen without the external wikitable that the above templates require. Uses Module:Infobox; {{infobox ship begin}} is no longer required; parameter names are changed from sentence- to snake-case; section header height for career, characteristics, service record sections is normalized; custom fields are supported. I chose to retain the individual section templates as subtemplates:

    • {{Infobox ship/image}}
    • {{Infobox ship/career}}
    • {{Infobox ship/characteristic}}
    • {{Infobox ship/class}}
    • {{Infobox ship/service record}} – Module:Infobox ship implements only the 'ship' portion of {{Infobox service record}}

    In the main infobox these subtemplates are called with the |section<n>= parameters (aliases of |data<n>=).

    Comparisons between wikitable infoboxen and Module:Infobox ship infoboxen can bee seen at my sandbox (permalink).

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    Since the intent is to use Module:Infobox directly, why is Module:Infobox ship being used to generate the infobox? I can understand if there is need for a backend module to validate a value or something, but is there really a reason to have this unique code? Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    The original complaint was that the ship infoboxen templates are table templates masquerading as infobox templates. None of those templates use Module:Infobox. Module:Infobox ship answers that complaint. Yeah, we still have subtemplates, but, in my opinion, that is a good thing because the appropriate parameters and their data are contained in each particular subtemplate. The container subtemplates make it relatively easy for an editor reading an article's wikitext to understand. The current ship infobox system allows sections in any order (except for the position of {{infobox ship begin}} – not needed with Module:Infobox ship); whatever the final outcome of this mess, that facility must not be lost.

    Module:Infobox ship does do some error checking (synonymous parameters |ship_armor= / |ship_armour=, |ship_draft= / |ship_draught=, |ship_honors= / |ship_honours=, and |ship_stricken= / |ship_struck=). Whether {{infobox ship}} directly calls Module:Infobox or whether {{infobox ship}} calls Module:Infobox ship which then calls Module:Infobox is really immaterial so long as the final rendered result is a correctly formatted infobox.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Trappist the monk are you still interested in working on this Module? If not, I'd like to try to get it finished myself. The massive deviation I had in mind was to make one invocation of the module do everything. Each page will require individual attention to complete the merge into a proper infobox anyway, so I reason to go the extra mile to make it nicer in general. Repeatable parameters will have the normal n number appended to the end of the parameter. An alternative would be to have subboxes for repeating sections, which would be easier in general to replace and implement. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

    Sure, but I don't think that this page is the proper place to discuss. Choose some place more proper and let me know where that is?

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Replacement with {{Infobox aircraft}}:
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_type2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_type ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_career2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_program2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_program ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_begin2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_engine2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_engine ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
    • For {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, There is an ongoing discussion about whether the aircraft engine Infobox should be merged with the Infobox aircraft or not. Except for the engine Infobox, other Infoboxes can be orphaned and there are no objection for that. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • This discussion is still ongoing, so I have moved it back to the "to merge" list with the others. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
      • The discussion has now ended (diff), with the consensus NOT TO MERGE {{Infobox aircraft engine}} with the others. However {{infobox aircraft begin}} may or may not end up being merged into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. The template pages should be updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Navigation templates

• None currently

Link templates

• Template:Lx2023 October 1 – Lx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Pagelinks2023 October 1 – Pagelinks ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Because Lx has the option to hide certain links and PageLinks itself doesn't, a direct merge is impossible. The next best thing would be to convert the transclusions to invocations of Module:PageLinks. Doesn't look too impossible at first glance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    Problem: Lx's 20,000 transclusions are kinda fake, because almost all of them are transclusions of transclusions.
    Even if we restrict it to the template namespace, most of those are transclusions of transclusions of transclusions in the doc subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    The more I look at this, the more it appears technically infeasible. Lx has some really bizarre arguments like tag and label which can't be replicated by Module:PageLinks. When Lx was used to link to a normal page, namespace is usually Talk and label is usually talk, but when it's used to link to a talk page, either could be anything. Also, the recursive transclusion issue means the only way to get our pages would be an insource search, which means we'd also have to deal with pages like this.

    Replacing all uses of the format \{\{[Ll]x\|1=\|2=(.*)\|3=Talk\|4=talk\}\} with {{Pagelinks|$1}} could be a start. From there, I'm totally lost. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    What if we only replaced uses matching an insource search in the template namespace, and then substed everything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Other

• Template:Football_squad_player22020 February 1 – Football_squad_player2 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and Template:Football_squad_player2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Note Pending Redesign RfC robertsky (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I've closed the RfC. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Auto_compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Auto_compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Wikisource author2023 July 5 – Wikisource author ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Wikisourcelang2023 July 5 – Wikisourcelang ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Hi now that {{Wikisourcelang}} is being merged, how do I use the merge target template to point to sister language Wikisources? All the links keep incorrectly pointing to the English version and the documentation of {{Wikisource}} has not been updated about this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Folly Mox, the merge has not yet been completed, so you should use the appropriate currently-existing template to do whatever it is you are planning until the merge is complete. The existing uses will be converted appropriately at that time. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Oops, I forgot I had posted here. My assertion was incorrectly based on the first instance I had tested, which had been misusing parameters in such a way that it worked prior to the start of the merge process but not afterwards. The links to en.s/lang:page do properly redirect if the parameters are used correctly, but I didn't initially follow the links to check. It was quite an embarrassing hour or so of my contribution history. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Template:Wikisourcehas2023 July 5 – Wikisourcehas ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

• I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Template:Archive2023 December 7 – Archive ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Automatic_archive_navigator2023 December 7 – Automatic_archive_navigator ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Archive_navigation2023 December 7 – Archive_navigation ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

  I've ported the missing parameters from {{Archive}} to Module:Automatic archive navigator/sandbox. I'm in favor of renaming the module and changing {{Archive}} to use it, while redirecting {{Automatic_archive_navigator}} to Archive. I'd really appreciate if a template-editor could give this a look. — mw (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Check out the discussion at Template talk:Automatic archive navigator about whether or not these parameters should be ported over. |prev= and |next= from {{archive nav}} will definitely need to be added though. --Trialpears (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of that discussion, thanks. If it turns out that they shouldn't be ported, feel free to revert my edits. I'll look into the other params later.— mw (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Template:Facebook_page2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Meta

• Template:Non-free_use_rationale_2/doc2024 March 11 – Non-free_use_rationale_2/doc ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Non-free_use_rationale/doc2024 March 11 – Non-free_use_rationale/doc ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

• 2023 October 25
  • Template:R to related2023 October 25 – R to related ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} as appropriate
  • Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia2024 April 25 – Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

• None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

• None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

• None currently