Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Not deleted/September 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Seemain[edit]

Delete: Redirect to {{main}} after TfD not needed. Orphaned other than in Talk pages (including hidden WLH:main). SEWilco 21:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Extend vote an extra day; notification begun now. SEWilco 17:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

note the survival of this and Template:SeeMain @ Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005#Template:Seemain_and_Template:SeeMain
  • Comment: I just used that template a few minutes ago. I'm happy to use a different one. What is the preferred template? Johntex 21:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: {{main}} is the primary replacement. (SEWilco 21:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • Thanks! I'll make the change. Johntex 21:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the change, but I see it was in use elsewhere in the article as well: [1] are you sure it is orphaned other than in Talk pages? Johntex 21:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove redirect Wikipedia is inconsistent; and this is an example of where it should be. Some of us prefer the phrasing, and See {{main}} just isn't the same thing. Septentrionalis 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you've yet to explain why Main article: Example is "less civil" (your description from the TfD talk page) than See main article: Example. Secondly, what if someone prefers Please see main article: Example, For main article: Example, or another of the countless possibilities? Should we have a separate template for every conceivable variation? —Lifeisunfair 22:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, the template was not orphaned (due to a software bug that causes some articles to be omitted from the "whatlinkshere" list until they're edited). The article Suicide methods was using {{seemain}} until I removed the two remaining instances. (An additional instance was removed by another user, triggering the article's inclusion on the aforementioned list). —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tibetan people just appeared on the "whatlinkshere" list. I performed another template replacement, but there probably are more articles where that came from. —Lifeisunfair 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually WLH is showing articles, they're just elsewhere. WLH:seemain was only showing articles not edited before the redirect. Articles which use seemain through the redirect show in WLH:main. To find those articles one has to search WLH:main for articles whose source actually contains seemain (there were 240 such articles). The orphaning bot had trouble because it silently encountered a WLH limit due to the number of WLH:main articles. (SEWilco 17:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Retain the redirect to {{main}}. As demonstrated above, {{seemain}} might still be present in some articles, and it probably will be added to other articles from time to time. While the template's use certainly shouldn't be encouraged, there's no reason why it needs to be deleted. —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What does "Delete and redirect" mean? When an unwanted article is deleted we don't redirect them someplace. "September 6th 1988", "Prevention of Travelers Diarrhea", "US Government Simulator". and "Snack time" were just deleted, but there is no redirect because someone might refer to them in the future. Unwanted terms become redlinks. (SEWilco 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • "Delete then redirect" means to first delete the template, and then put a redirect in its place. The first step is optional, I suppose. Most things that are deleted become redlinks. Some are more suitable as bluelinks to a related topic. Radiant_>|< 19:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I dont like to be told what to do, tell me its there, Ill decide to see it or not. If you must see it, then somthing is wrong with the article. Stbalbach 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then don't use {{seemain}}, and change it when you come across it. If enough people dislike See X, which is the traditional English (and Latin) way of indicating cross-reference, it will fall out of use; if not, not. That would seem to be the wiki method. Septentrionalis 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Getting bored of this debate. This isn't a bureaucracy. -Splash 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{Main}} should be ok for the vast majority of uses. All other variants can be enabled using ad hoc text without the need to resort to a new template. Courtland 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant, not to mention annoying. I hate it so much that I've removed it from the hurricane pages. It causes spacing problems on the page and is to difficult to alter: it takes several minutes to make the tiniest of changes. I have found it irritating since its creation.--E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've requested advice about this. Please do not remove from the mainpage yet. -Splash 05:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not deleted owing to much confusion, still, over whether this is orphaned or not. Too much potential damage to delete it. The nomination can be retried if this can be reliably orphaned. -Splash 01:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA fonts[edit]

Only used in {IPA} and I substituted it there. Contains a list of fonts. --MarSch 14:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also used on its own in the CSS code of a few tables scattered around Wikipedia. Without this template, there's no way those tables will get their font specifications updated. —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:36 Z
I looked a little more and found {IPA2} which now uses {IPA}. Which tables? --MarSch 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It, {{Unicode fonts}} and others are supposed to be a single point to edit the list of fonts needed to show some special characters on MSIE. The list of fonts is kept separate from the template on purpose. --cesarb 19:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll not delete this, first as a no consensus and second as it seems its purpose was accidentally misunderstood.-Splash 02:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment from August 28th PM to August 28 PM: 0.5days
Removed from TfD September 12th AM: 14.5days

Template: Editors [edit]

  • Delete: Redundant, does not provide much information and is quite big, creating clutter. --Sn0wflake 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you see this as being redundant with? It looks to me as if the intent was to use "what links here" to create a list of reference pages for fairly new editors. That doesn't strike me as a bad idea. Tentative keep pending furhter discussion. DES (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have a few templates of this kind already, but most importantly, for its large size, it does not provide enough information. This is not a very effective solution to a not so existant problem, as nowadays all users are greeted with an appropriate template anyway. The Help:Contents is also quite accesible. In resume, what I am trying to say is: it's not needed. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi - I created the template. The uses are legitimate, and I think good. See the template talk page for more information; but I truly think that this is a good idea. It only appears "redundant" because it is new and hasn't been implemented on many pages yet. --Heebiejeebieclub 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's definitely a good idea, but we have several dozen toolbox templates already, and I think that what you're looking for actually already exists. But I see no harm in helping n00bs - might I also direct you to {{welcome}} for adding links? Radiant_>|< 19:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Heebiejeebieclub, I am in no way questioning your good faith. I just believe this will unecessarily increase template stacking. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good grief nominated 30 minutes after creation and part of an ongoing proposal on the Village Pump. I made some changes to its format that should reduce its size to something less objectionable and let those who have an interest in the pages it is intended for decide whether this template is useful. Caerwine 20:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 30 minutes after creation?! That does seem excessively fast for non-offensive, non-copyvio content to find its way here. Courtland 01:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In use, undergoing revision. -- Visviva 01:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can I summarize from this that I had the right idea, but just not the right template? That it will be kept but redesigned? Anyway, the template was not meant as a welcome message, it was intennded to be put at the top of articles that helped with editing.--Heebiejeebieclub 12:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete. Simply putting that message at the top doesn't go anyplace, but putting them in a category would be possibly useful. -Splash 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone can point out at least one other template that makes this one redundant. -- Reinyday, 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del, self evident message is not useful --MarSch 11:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as insufficient time for discussion so far. But, at least as of now, it seems like a bad idea, and I would support deleting it in a few weeks, unless things change. JesseW 05:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep'' May or may not be a great idea, but it is a tool that does no harm. Improve it or leave it alone. — Xiong熊talk* 17:06, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Period of comment from August 28th PM to September 7 PM: 10days
Removed from TfD September 12th AM: 14.5days

Template: LISWiki link [edit]

Delete: This is misleading and makes LISWiki look like a sister project of Wikipedia (see the {{wikibooks}} template etc.), or at least priveliges it over other external links, which is not appropriate. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just like Template:Musicbrainz wiki box below. Sisterproject box for nonsisterproject. They should all be speedyable as recreations, really; all of the past consensuses have been quite strong, and since they haven't seemed to care what the external site is, pasting a different link in doesn't make the template not be "substantially identical" to the deleted ones. —Cryptic (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, modified per Template:Uncyclopedia discussion to conform to the Template:Memoryalpha style of third party wiki links --John Hubbard 13:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. External site templates are promotional in nature. Need a more formal acceptance process to avoid cluttering up articles with pseudo-advertising. Stbalbach 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete promo for a non-sister site. -Splash 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand. The modified version is identical to the approved Memoryalpha link syntax. It goes in the "External links" section of articles. Why are you guys saying that a "pseudo-advertising" "promo" like this shouldn't deserve a (formatted) link? --John Hubbard 00:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as a recreation in substance of the Uncyclopedia templates. No templates for non-sibling projects should be a CSD rule, in my view. By the way, when is the next CSD expansion poll, for that matter? --Titoxd 03:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There probably needs to be some standard on the formatting and types of template links that are used in the External links sections of articles. I think that both LISWiki and Memoryalpha are appropriate wikis to link to when their articles are much more detailed that the comparable Wikipedia articles (compare Digital Library to LSIWiki Digital Library] article). One change should be that ALL such templates should begin with an asterisk to emphasize that they are for the External links sections only. BlankVerse ∅ 10:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the previous debate on {{Sh}} and the usage of {{isfdb name}} and the like. Standardized tempaltes for linking to commonly cited external sources are (IMO) a Good ThingTM in general. DES (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree with this view that boilerplate templates for external links are a good idea. I suspect it raises the possibility that someone will go round tagging our articles on any subject covered on their site, regardless of whether or not their page is informative and useful. The text "<whatever> article at LISWiki, a Library and information science wiki" still seems a little bit advert-like to me. — Trilobite 15:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. So your VFD is based on (a) envisioning potential problems, and (b) the definition of an abbreviation, then? I don't have any comments on spelling out initialisms, but your point about the realm of possibilities is interesting. How often are counterfactual conditions considered when restricting content and editing (i.e., are pages protected because of potential vandalism, or because of historical evidence)? Couldn't the "possibility" of causing problems be put on most anything? Wouldn't it be better to focus on real ones, if and when they occur? /$.02 --John Hubbard 17:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply Why is it any more likely that a link spamer will link-spam via template than via a non-=template link? If a template link is put on an article where it does not add value, it can be removed just as esily and in the same way as if a non-template link had been placed, plus using "what links here" on the template allows anyone to see exactly where it has been used, making it easier (not harder) to find and remove inmappropriate uses. And, of course, if a site moves or is systematically reconstructed, lots of broken links may be fixed at once by editing the template. The ISFDB has already moved twice, and while its current location is probably stable, there is no certianty on the web. DES (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; to Trilobite: be bold and rephrase, but the present wording spells out initials, just like {{isfdb}}. Septentrionalis 15:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment from August 28th PM to September 6 PM: 9days
Removed from TfD September 12th AM: 14.5days

Template: Uncyclopedia [edit]

Delete: Promotional in nature, unnecessary and like-minded Templates previously voted for deletion. Template author contends template is not Speedy Delete since its a different style and wording than the previous one that was delete. Stbalbach 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

archived TFD comment stream from July 2005 → deletion — Courtland 04:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Err I'm not the author, I just felt that is was suffiently different to be considered a "new" template, and speedy deletion was inappropriate.--ElvisThePrince 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete different wording or not, still a recreate me thinks. ∞Who?¿? 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam for another wiki is still spam. - SimonP 22:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All links in the template are interal to wikipedia and it serves a purpose, how can a link to a wikipedia article be spam??--ElvisThePrince 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does advertise Uncyclopedia, even if not with an external link. It is redundant either with {{vfd}} or with the various {{cleanup}}s. -Splash 00:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Reinyday, 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless.--Pharos 01:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creation of this template was not sanctioned by Uncyclopedia. Whether the consensus is to keep or delete this is up to the voters. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 02:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I really liked McDonalds hamburgers and told all my friends that Wendy's hamburgers aren't McDonalds hamburgers, it would still be advertising, although McDonalds didn't sanction me to do so. (btw I hate McD's hamburgers :) ). ∞Who?¿? 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If telling people that Wendy's burgers aren't MacDonalds burgers is advertising, I'm not quite sure what isn't....--64.170.153.127 03:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, uncyc admins did not create this template. Please don't be under the impression we're constantly trying to promote our site on wikipedia, that is not our goal. We take no stance on this template, but will not officially support it. (uncyc admin) --Chronarion 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and restrict usage to talk pages only. Comments Doubt that {{vfd}} and {{cleanup}} are direct equivalents (cleanup is vague, vfd is an invitation to go vote) - not sure if there are other templates out there that might be a closer match, comments? In any case, am surprised to see Stbalbach attempting to pass this off as a duplicate of some previous template in order to bypass normal voting procedure - if he was the one who originated the previous VFD (different template, same name) he must be familiar enough with both affected templates to know better? --carlb 03:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the deletion log certainly says its been removed by TfD before, and the debate is in the archives. -Splash 04:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone is claiming that a template with the same name was not tfd'd the point is that it's suffiently different to be considered on it's own merits rather than deleted out of hand as a re-creation without even looking.--ElvisThePrince 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See its use at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism where it is obvious from the talk page that the article has had all sorts of nonsense added to it that is clearly unencyclopedic (and possibly Uncyclopedia inspired). Or I would also support the alternative of renaming it to template:Encyclopedic, and rewording the beginning to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia..." Either way, the template should be changed to one of the talk page classes that use the CoffeeRoll formatting. BlankVerse ∅ 10:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not a sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you even look at the template? It not a article page template that links to articles at the Unencyclopedia, like the old template did, its a talk page template that tells editors that the Wikipedia is not the Unencyclopedia and so they shouldn't edit Wikipedia articles like they would articles on the Unencyclopedia. BlankVerse ∅ 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've seen that, but I still consider it linkspam. Radiant_>|< 09:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, talk:Uncyclopedia claims it's a first-cousin project, and an adopted one at that. ;) --carlb 15:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just seems to be promoting Uncyclopedia more. Not needed.  Thorpe talk 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thsi doen't seem advertising any more than a google test tempalte is advertising google -- indeed not so much, as it contians no internal links. if anything it is a slander against Uncyclopedia. Possibly useful, but should only be used on talk pages IMO, and should be documentd to that effect. DES (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a variant on {{pov}}, not an advertisement for Uncyclopedia. Making this into another redirect to PoV would be fine too. In any case, clearly not a speedy, as the existence of DES's post should show. 02:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I concur with User:BlankVerse. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per user DES above. --Misza13 17:14:51, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be obvious that Wikipedia is not a different encyclopedia website. Other than stating that, it just says that Wikipedia has NPOV policies, which is what other templates are used for saying, if it needs to be said. If it really needs to be said, it should just be said -- there is no need for a silly template. --Fastfission 19:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coment So your saying that peolle can't write content thats NPOV and in a non-encyclopedia style???? e.g. "Billy Shakespear was a geezer who wrote a lot of plays in Elizabethan England", NPOV (as far as I can tell) but certainly not encyclopedic....--ElvisThePrince 11:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, it applies to all articles. We can make a template of each policy and put it in each article to remind users of these policies. CG 20:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    Yer while we're at it may as well get rid of {{Advertisement}} and {{{Vanity}}} as you say these apply to all articles as well.....--ElvisThePrince 10:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uneccesary, poorly worded.Voice of All(MTG) 04:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some articles quite need this sort of template.
  • Strong delete. In my opinion, this template has no legitimate application. It's true that Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia, but there's absolutely no need to convey such a statement (especially one that singles out a specific parody site, given the fact that it's far from unique). Whether intentional or not, this comes across as a sneaky, backdoor method of advertising Uncyclopedia. — Lifeisunfair 07:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Application would appear to be to respond to one specific issue: the insertion of pointless silliness into non-humour articles. As such, not the same as {{NPOV}} or other existing templates. --carlb 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this as no consensus. -Splash 03:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment from August 29th PM to September 8 PM: 9.5days
Removed from TfD September 12th AM: 13.5days

Template:Infobox Apskritis[edit]

It is replaced by a more elaborate version Template:Infobox apskritis following a discussion about templates proposed on User:Renata3/elderates. I am sorry, I know I should have have updated the old version instead of creating a new template... Stupid me :) Renata3 17:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You can also redirect templates too. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect so as not to lose the revision history. -- Reinyday, 20:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll redirect this as a useful miscapitalization. -Splash 04:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment from September 3rd PM to September 8 PM: 5days
Removed from TfD September 12th AM: 8.5days

Template:Disambig-cleanup[edit]

Delete: this is supposed to be {{cleanup}} for disambig pages, and is redundant with the combination. However, the real reason to dispose of this is that is a temptation for the bossy and lazy to put this, instead of fixing the page themselves. ({{cleanup}} may be justified for those who find a page badly written but have no knowledge of the subject; but a dab page doesn't need knowledge. Anything which requires knowledge to rewrite should be changed anyway.) Septentrionalis 16:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (full disclosure: I created the template). There has been discussion about this on the disambiguation project talk page. There was a suggestion that we needed a way to keep track of dab pages that needed cleanup, and this seemed the most obvious way. May I suggest that before people weigh in, they at least read the (extensive) discussion that's been going on for weeks on the project page. --RoySmith 17:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although for some reason I keep on seeing that template at the bottom of a page... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be at the bottom —Wahoofive (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a template designed by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation (I'm one) for use both by members of the project and any others who find it useful. Cleaning up a dab page requires knowledge and is not robot work; part of the cleaning is to fix all the incoming links, which can be many. Cleaning up a dab page is a distinct activity from cleaning up a standard article; such a distinction is reinforced by the application of this template. Courtland 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment ...and considering that fixing a dab page is just idle no-brainer work, please feel free to while away a moment at Enlightenment, and don't forget the >100 incoming links that need to be redirected to their proper destinations. Courtland 23:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and now that it's been fixed it should work even better. Much more sensible to have one template rather than two, especially since the cleanup of disambiguation pages is a different type of job to the cleanup of general articles. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm finding it very useful in finding dab pages to clean up. (I'm another member of the Wikiproject.) We can always delete it later, once the majority of these are cleaned up to the new MoS standards, but for now there's a lot of work to be done -- some dab pages are appallingly bad. — Catherine\talk 03:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit so the DAB part is still the important part -- the other stuff is too confusing to readers. In fact, the text should be identical to {{disambig}} but just add the category.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment from September 6th PM to September 10th PM: 4days
Removed from TfD September 14th AM: 7.5days(yay!)

Template:Uncategorized[edit]

Unnecessary clutter. Avoid self references. 24ip | lolol 22:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I wrote on Template talk:Catneeded, I find this tag useful, especially when I do not have the time to search for the right category to put the article in myself. "Unnecessary clutter" is an insufficient reason to delete this template, nor is "avoid self references" when this is a boilerplate tag and not an actual article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The special page is not very useful, this brings a bit of attention and since it's always placed at the bottom where the categories are supposed to go, it's not so intrusive. --Joy [shallot] 22:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful, the self-references rule should not apply to these sort of templates. Hall Monitor 23:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is an entirely valid and highly useful template; it constitutes "unnecessary clutter" to no greater extent than any other cleanup notice. 24ip obviously has misunderstood the "avoid self references" directive, which clearly doesn't apply. —Lifeisunfair 23:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I personally don't really like it, but if others find it useful then fair enough. violet/riga (t) 23:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This shows that a user attempted to choose a category, but failed. At least someone looked at it and marked it as so. --Gary King 01:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet more template pollution. →Raul654 01:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the categorizing system is so overly complicated that it can take an expert to place some articles. -- Kjkolb 03:15, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral for the same reasons as violet/riga. Nandesuka 03:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Articles need cats!
  • Strong and speedy keep, as per Lifeisunfair. Alai 04:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this all the time when on RC patrol. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have always wanted a way to flag articles without a category when I could not think of a good cat. Vegaswikian 21:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not experienced with the category system, so I spend my time doing what I do best - proofreading and writing, letting others choose the categories. --Quintin3265 23:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have never used this, but can see it being useful for uncategorized articles where one is unsure of which category to add. --Uppland 06:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When I saw that a cat was needed, I provided one. A better picture may be in order... Tomer TALK 07:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
FYI, your edits to the template constitute silly vandalism. —Lifeisunfair 07:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there'd be someone w/o a sense of humor. :-p Tomer TALK 15:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's a pun, not vandalism. Guettarda 16:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's vandalism. Kidding around is fine, but not when it disrupts articles and creates unnecessary work for other editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. —Lifeisunfair 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's an image on a template. You could argue that adding an image to a template is bad because it adds to server loads, but a template in the article space saying that this needs categorisation does nothing to add to our credibility as an encyclopaedia - it looks amateurish. Adding a picture of a cat to the template actually gives it some value - it's an amusing pun. While puns are the lowest form of humour (well, they beat aristocrat jokes) adding a cat to the template does not harm the project. For one, it does not belong in the article space. It does nothing to help users of the encyclopaedia. If you want to look something up, you don't want to know that the page needs a cat. If used on the Talk page though, it's a useful tool - and every Talk page needs (a) cats, and (b) humour. As angry as some Talk pages get, puns would be a huge benefit. I do appeal to users to consider moving this template to Talk pages - it's no harder to find (you can always just check Category:Category needed - anyone who can't figure out where to put the category probably shouldn't be inserting categories). Guettarda 22:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually it's an image on a template. You could argue that adding an image to a template is bad because it adds to server loads, but a template in the article space saying that this needs categorisation does nothing to add to our credibility as an encyclopaedia - it looks amateurish."
Do you believe that all of the cleanup tags look amateurish?
"Adding a picture of a cat to the template actually gives it some value - it's an amusing pun."
I'm not amused by vandalism.
"While puns are the lowest form of humour (well, they beat aristocrat jokes) adding a cat to the template does not harm the project."
You don't believe that inserting a contextually nonsensical image into random articles has an adverse effect? I'm not implying that the walls came tumbling down, but it was vandalism.
"For one, it does not belong in the article space."
That's your opinion. It's a perfectly valid one, but disliking a template or the manner in which it's used is not a rational reason to condone vandalism.
"It does nothing to help users of the encyclopaedia."
On the contrary, it helps by facilitating a simple process through which they can find other articles on the same and/or similar topics (simultaneously extending this benefit to future readers).
"If used on the Talk page though, it's a useful tool - and every Talk page needs (a) cats, and (b) humour."
I'm quite fond of both, but not in this context.
"As angry as some Talk pages get, puns would be a huge benefit."
By all means, post some puns on talk pages. How does this pertain to Tomer's decision to deface an actively used template?
"I do appeal to users to consider moving this template to Talk pages - it's no harder to find (you can always just check Category:Category needed - anyone who can't figure out where to put the category probably shouldn't be inserting categories)."
This template doesn't merely target editors who seek to categorize articles; it also targets readers who are knowledgeable enough on specific topics to select the appropriate categories. —Lifeisunfair 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lifeisunfair, I don't mean to undermine Guettarda's defense of my insertion of the image into the template. I wasn't attempting to engage in "vandalism", silly or otherwise. I thought that the template was fine with its previous name, and the text of the template explained perfectly well what the purpose was thereof. I do take mild offense at the vehemence with which you defend your classification of my action as "vandalism", but at the same time, I see no harm whatsoever, in adding an image of a cat to the template. While the "average user" (i.e., one who arrives at any given article as a result of a google search) may not understand the pun, nothing is harmed by my having put an image of a cat into the template. At the same time, such an "average user" will long since have become familiar with the WP "cat=category" shorthand to have understood the pun before they can add any useful categories to any given article. There is no harm in humor, a claim I maintain, despite your attempts to squelch any evidence thereof. Most of us edit WP because we enjoy doing so, not because we feel any particular need to uphold ridiculous standards of decorum based on your view(s), nor because we're looking to maintain the dryest possible text ever read. If that were the case, we'd go to Encyclopædia Brittanica and ask to be paid for our work. What, in truth, do you feel was bad about having an image of a cat in a template called "catneeded"? In what way do you feel the template was less useful because of my insertion thereof thereinto? At this point, I'm on the verge of having to cast aside the assumption of good faith, pending a sensible rebuttal, and assume, instead, that you're miserable and lacking humor, and trying to spread it around. Tomer TALK 09:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Tomer's version, and use on articles that need cats. Delete if it's going to be used on the Article page. Might be acceptable on the Talk page. Guettarda 16:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to spoil your fun, but I've moved the template to a more descriptive title. —Lifeisunfair 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Useful. — RJH 19:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, though usage on talk pages might be a better idea. Silly Comment: adding this template to an article places it in a category, making it not uncategorized, but categorized; therefore, the template should be removed. But now we have an uncategorized article, and we should reapply the template... let's hear it for infinite loops! android79 20:04, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Reinyday, 20:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it belongs on the talk page. - SimonP 01:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Super strong keep in a bottle and preserve for ever :) sorry, I use these all the time, being one who does massive cat moves, these are very helpful when I dont have the time to find a suitable cat. I prefer to fix the small errors and at least notify others that a cat is needed rather than leaving it orphaned for some undisclosed amount of time. ∞Who?¿? 02:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is quite useful. I've just categorized several articles after looking at this discussion, and will probably help with more as they are added. It's not "amateurish" to suggest that we are a working encyclopedia, rather than a finished product.--Pharos 02:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I may be nearly the only one who feels this way, but I think there is enough cleanup template pollution in article space already. This template puts a little blue box on the article and adds it to Category:Category needed. Surely the latter is more than enough to identify and distinguish pages needing categorization. As such I suggest keeping the category and using that, but ditching the blue box. Dragons flight 19:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sometimes there’s need for some rethinking before finding the most suitable categories, and it’s practical to mark the article in some way so they can be found again. If there isn’t any place to put them they have a tendency to be forgotten. Special:Uncategorizedpages is only frequently updated. -- Sunny256|✎ 23:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the blue box and either delete the template entirely, or make it only add Category:Category needed to the article, or add text (like the stub templates), e.g. This article needs to be categorized. You can help by adding it to one or more categories. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Technical question: could we have a bot going through all uncategorized article pages and adding a {{catneeded}} template plus a date (like the pearle cleanup bot does), preferably the month each article was created, and placed in corresponding monthly categories? Uppland 17:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment from September 6th PM to September 10th PM: 4days
Removed from TfD September 14th AM: 7.5days(yay!)

Template:Infobox SoftwareProduct[edit]

Was deleted here previously, but restored after a debate on VfU gave a majority for undeletion (which is all VfU requires). Thus it comes back here for reconsideration. -Splash 18:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave Unchanged as this template, just like Template:Infobox_Software2 exists to show a different way that information could be displayed. If felt necessary, then perhaps a comment similar to the one in Software2 should be added to avoid confusion. Technically the purpose is similar but not the same. This template is meant to be a more fair cross between the open- and closed-source software in one consistent template. An example of the difference is that, unlike Software2, this template doesn't believe a single date field should be added separately since some products maintain multiple product versions that are still developed at the same time and could be released at a different dates (such as Apache and MySQL) that aren't reflected as well in the original Software template currently Quadra23 September 13 2005.
    • Irrelevant - those are reasons for merging instead of deleting. A valid reason for keeping the template would be that a merger would be too difficult or create an overcomplicated template; I don't know if that's the case. At the very least, if the template is kept, it needs to be renamed to reflect its purpose. Rd232 08:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus on what to do here, so it stays. -Splashtalk 23:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkheader and Template:Talkheaderlong[edit]

Either this content should show up by default (integrated into MediaWiki), or it should not show up at all. I don't see much point in having it on some talk pages, but not having it on some others. All talk pages are likely to get visits from people who need help using them, this help shouldn't be limited to a semi-randomly selected few only. --Joy [shallot] 23:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nearly nominated it myself the other day. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe but it doesn't show up by default so its quite a useful template used on many pages Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--per Ryan Norton---E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I would have put this up for deletion myself when I saw it on Talk:Rubik's Cube. If people want to change the format of Wikipedia, the proper forum is in the talkpages of the MediaWiki namespace. Coffee 03:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoublePlusStrong Keep — Template:Talkheaderlong is one of some my most favoritest template thingies in all of the whole entire Wikipedia! Keep! Keep! Keep! Please? --Corvun 05:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I´m not the one who created the templates, but I spread it on some talk pages. It is important help for newcomers. --ThomasK 07:00, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Until the MediaWiki software automatically adds something like these templates to every newly created article talk page (the same way it automatically adds a message to every new user page for an IP). BlankVerse ∅ 12:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{talkheader}} but delete {{talkheaderlong}}. If they're going to be used, they might as well be standardised, and the former is consistent with other talk page messages. I'm not sure if it is actually of any benefit (I'm still having to sign for anon's), but it doesn't do any harm either. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as stated on the template talk page, I created these because I think it's useful to have some brief intro (for newbies) and reminders (for everyone else) at the top of talk pages. Ideally, this would be accomplished in software (a) to put such a message at the top of every talk page; (b) to put a message specific to talk pages for the edit-box page (which comes up when you click edit) - currently you get the standard material relating to article editing. If anyone knows how to achieve such software changes, great. In the mean time, the templates are better than nothing, and may be a stepping stone to a future software change; let's not delete prematurely. (As for templateheaderlong - the logic is that some pages (eg big current events) draw more newbies than others, and that it's worth taking more screen space on such pages to provide more help to them.) Rd232 16:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to achieve software changes, well, do that then. File a bug on MediaWiki, and ask people to vote for it. Or something like that - the proper procedure should be explained somewhere. I don't see any reason why we first need to have a kludged solution, and only later implement it properly. Doing it the right way means less work. --Joy[shallot] 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the proper procedure should be explained somewhere". Suggestions on a postcard, please. (Isn't there anyone familiar with that stuff who could pick up the baton?) Rd232 10:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These serve no purpose except to condescend to the participants in a particular discussion. If you want to change the text globally, fine, let's debate that on its own merits. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep {{talkheader}}; it seems to be being used fairly consistently on controversial talk pages, and the reminder of civility may help - that is, things might be worse without. Septentrionalis 03:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. From what I've seen, these templates are placed on Talk pages with extremely high visibility, and as ThomasK points out, they are a way to welcome anons into discussion in a friendly manner. Besides, if users want to change the MediaWiki namespace to show it on all pages, they're free to do so! However, that doesn't mean that this template has to go until the changes are made. In the meantime, what are we going to use? It's a bit like deleting VfD (now AfD) without something to replace it with. Until there is a viable solution to those concerns, this template should not be deleted. --Titoxd 05:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{talkheader}} has proven to be extremely useful when communicating with new users. Hall Monitor 16:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inconsistency is annoying. If MediaWiki would have a feature to show this message, it also should have "Don't show this message any more" option for registered users. I know what talk pages are, I don't need predictable messages about them. Such messages only pester me. -Hapsiainen 16:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
God forbid having to scroll an extra four lines for the benefit of coundless others...
You seem to have realized the friendliness of your remark because you wrote it as non-registered, and even didn't sign it with your IP address. -Hapsiainen 12:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely the logical way to introduce a feature like this is to try it out using a template before asking to change code. Any change that was made for new pages would not be retroactive in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgonzilla (talk • contribs) Derex
  • Keep it's useful on pages that attract lots of newbies. sure, the mediawiki software can be changed. but there's nothing wrong with a little helpful boldness in the meantime. Derex 23:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until it can be made standard on all talk pages. Arnie587 00:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- can we close this now, with a keep decision? The tfd msg uglifies pages where the template is used. Rd232 08:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • First I’d like to add a Delete or at least shrink. It’s way too big (IMHO) and occupies lots of space. The info stored there is also only needed in the user start phase, when the users know about how things works, it will probably develop into an annoyance having them on all talk pages. If it’ll be heavily used, it should be a Preferences option so users can switch them on/off instead of inserting it into all pages. -- Sunny256|✎ 09:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Especially because of the reminder to civility and to add the tildes.Kyle Andrew Brown 18:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Wikipedia guideline is already there. Besides, the size of the template is quite large, in my opinion. *drew 10:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PokemonHoenn[edit]

I found this while cleaning up Pokemon Articles. Apparently 141 pages link to it, but I can't find where. It seems to be merely one line of code, created by User142 and forgotten. If you want to know a complete list of Pokemon found in Hoenn, this is better. As for whatever it is it does, the Pokeinfo box probably already does a better job. I think it should be Deleted.Spriteless 02:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep, and renominate when WP:PAC/S is ratified and universally applied. This is part of the old Pokémon infobox, which was actually an inconsistently-applied table used in each of the Pokémon species articles. It's already obsolete, true, as the by-hand infoboxes are being replaced with Template:pokeinfobox.
That said, the switchover to Template:pokeinfobox isn't complete, and this template is still in use on many of the Pokémon species pages that haven't been switched over. If someone wants to set a bot on the task of subst-ing this template into all the articles that use it, feel free to delete it (as it won't be added to any new articles), but switching over to Template:pokeinfobox by bot isn't a practical option, so this TFD is premature. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On further review of the TFD procedures, my vote is Delete, with a note to the closing admin to subst: the template out in all the articles it appears in instead of simply deleting it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note to whomever counts votes: The template MiB refers to is one he himself has created and is replacing article content with, and its use is not agreed upon over at WP:PAC. Almafeta 10:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:pokeinfobox (the current form is a collaboration of User:Celestianpower and myself; we'll split the attribution - he can take the credit and I'll take the blame ;) will be the home of the final version of the infobox. It's a matter of some debate what form the infobox should take (although I'm a bit disappointed that Almafeta hasn't expressed his objections other than in the form of a "You're going to revert me back so who cares what I think?"). In any event, the handmade tables are being replaced with a templated infobox, in whatever form it takes. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you disagree with his template on principal, you have to admit it would be easier to program a bot to replace all instances of a standard info block with a less controversial one, than wait to replace over 300 hand made ones.I don't see what the issue is.Spriteless 03:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't know anything about the template's structure... The_Joker | PT 00:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Until template:pokeinfobox is put into all articles. If we want to add the stats (wehich is the main sticking point of the template, pokeinfobox) then its easier to do so with a template there in place. --Celestianpower hab 15:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus, so keep. -Splashtalk 23:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Incomplete [edit]

Delete: If an article in "incomplete" then why have this template when Stub is available? Also, there is no category this template falls into. There are a small amount of articles with this template on their pages but they could have a stub notice instead.  Thorpe talk 17:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to abstain from voting either delete or keep; but see the latter sections of the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 article for an example of the use of the Incomplete template for individual sections rather than for the entire article. This is a case where the template is used differently than a stub notice would be. LiniShu 04:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, section stub notices could be used there, and look better as well. Stub/not-stub is also much better terminology than incomplete/complete; likely very few articles could be described as "complete" so the use of this template is ambiguous. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
  • Delete, OK, I was forgetting about the existence of Template:Sectstub; I agree that the Incomplete template duplicates the purpose of the stub templates, and that the stub templates are better, for the reasons stated above: better terminology; less jarring in appearance. LiniShu 04:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been bold - Template:Incomplete was meant to be a redirect to {{sectstub}}, as was decided quite a while ago via the stub sorting wikiproject. Seems that someone decided to revive it as a separate template - I've reverted it to the redirect it was. If I was wrong to do so, feel free to hurl things in my direction. And if a deletion is better, that can still be done. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this has been redirected back to whence it came, and it arises out of the stub-sorting project, I'm going to take this as ok-to-keep. Please do let me know if you would prefer it still to be deleted, although a new TfD is probably in order. -Splashtalk 23:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This article is about[edit]

Wrong way to do disambigs. Presents redundant information on the article. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep This is for disambig headers, where the phrasing is often useful as an immediate warning that the reader may want the dab page. Compare, but please do not change, the first line of Pine Barrens (New Jersey). Septentrionalis 03:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyvio1[edit]

Delete: I don't see the point in this, this template and it's partner {{Copyvio2}} perform the exact same job as {{Copyvio}} does without the hassle of using two seperate templates to get the job done. These templates are also not mentioned anywhere in the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you vote for this please also vote for Copivio2 below since deleting just one of them makes no sense. --Sherool 16:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These look like a relic of something and the more usual boilerplate does the job fine. Why have 3 templates doing the job when you could do it with one? -Splashtalk 23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As previously mentioned, Copyvio performs the same function as Copyvio1 and Copyvio2 combined - LiniShu 01:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were used before it was possible to pass parameters to templates - they are now therefore obsolete. Delete. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I for one have never bothered to learn the new system and still use the old one. Since the results are the same I see no reason to force users to change. - SimonP 16:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (You could also say that since the results are the same I see no reason to have two different templates... sjorford #£@%&$?! 16:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • As I mentioned there is a very good reason, that I have not bothered to learn the new method. There are at least a hundred maintenance templates that I use regularly. These templates are constantly in flux. Each probably changes only once every three or four months, but this amounts to an average of one template to relearn each and every day. I personally can't be bothered to do this, so when it makes no difference I simply continue to use the older method. - SimonP 17:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Not being bothered" is not a very good reason at all. Having two templates that do the same thing, and that therefore may get out of sync, for no other reason than somebody stubbornly refuses to learn a very simple syntax change, is also a not very good thing. It ain't complicated, Simon, just bother', please. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with SimonP. No reason why obsolescence should spur deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obsolescence is a perfectly good reason to delete. This is because the name copyvio2 was needed by another template, but couldn't be had because the one below was in the way, and almost unused. It was desirable for that reason to remove it, and so copyvio1 would be broken without it. I wonder: you must see some benefit to the Wiki in retain obsoleted templates that are in the way of new templates. What benefit is that? -Splashtalk 18:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was obsoleted in the sense that it was not in use, that would be one thing; this is "obsoleted" only in the sense that there is an alternative that many (though apparently not all) people prefer. This template is useful and constructive to the purpose of building an encyclopedia and in current use by editors at this moment; wanting to use the name for something else (and why this other template requires that name certainly hasn't been made clear here) is simply not a sufficient reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is obsoleted in the sense that there are about 900 pages using {{copyvio}}, and about 30 using {{copyvio1}} and {{copyvio2}}. It is therefore clear that the vast majority of editors have managed to use the new template, and I would suggest that most of those that haven't simply haven't noticed it exists. It is harmful to have two different templates to do exactly the same thing, as the wording will not automatically be synchronised between the two, and if the process on WP:CP changes, then the older templates, which are not referenced anywhere in the instructions, will likely be missed. I really feel like I'm labouring a point here, but I can't for the life of me understand why anybody is so attached to this template. What is it, an urge to rebel or something? (this is a sort of joke, I think) sjorford #£@%&$?! 22:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is inconsistent. I dislike the urge to regiment being displayed here; the wiki method is to keep both in use until consensus manifests itself by disuse of one set or the other. Septentrionalis 03:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know what this means. sjorford #£@%&$?! 22:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my experience the "wiki method" is to merge (and redirect) or delete duplicates pretty much on sight, and in this case there is nothing to merge, and redirecting won't work. Keeping all three only result in more work as we have to maintain three seperate templates for a job you only need one for. What is so hard about learning to type {{copyvio|url=[link]}} instead of {{copyvio1}}[link]{{copyvio2}}? --Sherool 22:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, I would say that this is just redundant, so it could be kept. However, Sjorford called it right on this one. It's redundant, but not harmless. Delete. Titoxd 23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyvio2[edit]

Delete: Same as Copyvio1 above. If you vote for this please also vote for Copyvio1 abowe since deleting just one of them makes no sense. --Sherool 16:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These look like a relic of something and the more usual boilerplate does the job fine. Why have 3 templates doing the job when you could do it with one? -Splashtalk 23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as Copyvio1 above - LiniShu 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I for one have never bothered to learn the new system, and still use the old one. Since the results are the same I see no reason to force users to change. - SimonP 16:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obsolescence not in itself a reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. (I am puzzled why those arguing for deletion on the grounds of efficiency did not make this a single nomination; but it's too late to merge them now.) Septentrionalis 03:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as in {{copyvio1}}. Titoxd 23:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities in Sweden[edit]

Reportedly, this template is not useful. It's just a rather uninteresting list of Swedish cities, which might as well be replaced by a link to cities in Sweden and a listing of the relevant cities there. There's also the problem that stad and "city" are not equivalent terms, which is bound to confuse non-Swedes. Fred-Chess 05:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is withtracted. The template as it were has been deleted. Fred-Chess 21:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not relevant it is not readable ! Lvr 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the formatting could be improved, the template does no harm, and it it useful because it links to important cities in Sweden's history. Fred-Chess 14:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I think it's bulky, I think it would be a good nav template for specific research. It could be made a list, but it's better than a category. Also, why did the nom vote keep after the nom?? ∞Who?¿? 04:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After someone proposed the template unneeded, I wanted to check for others' opinions. Fred-Chess 14:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can be put within Cities in Sweden or a category. (SEWilco 16:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: it is redundant and not helpful. The content could be just listed in the "Sweden" article. No need to point from each city to all other cities. −Woodstone 16:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: More items than can effectively be displayed on a template. A perfect situation for a category. - SimonP 17:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Although perhaps totally against the rules, I decided to use your suggestions to redesign the template into a link to a list right away, which seemed to be considered more useful. Fred-Chess 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "typical" template !!!! This should be inserted in the articles instead of a footer template. Lvr 11:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not deleting this despite the consensus, since it was redesigned after all the above comments. A renomination is necessary if the new templeate should still be deleted. -Splashtalk 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairuseunknownsource[edit]

And redirect at Template:Fuus. It's really, really difficult, if not impossible, to claim fair use without a source. I think that this template is dangerous because it rationalizes images without sources, and encourages laziness (instead of researching where an image came from, or coming up with an iron-clad rationale, people seem to just tag it it as {{fuus}}). As well, I've been re-tagging everything that uses this template, so as of later this evening there won't be any uses. DeleteRedirect as below. JYolkowski // talk 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Without this template, all images claimed as "fair use" but with unknown sources will be tagged as {{fairuse}}, and will blend in with the mass. With this template, some of them will be tagged {{fuus}}, and will be much easier to find and either fix or delete. It serves the same purpose as {{permission}}, {{noncommercial}}, and the noncommercial Creative Commons tags: it provides a way of finding images that shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place. --Carnildo 22:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep. Carnildo makes a good point. However, it needs to be noted that all images tagged with this template are now basically speedy-tagged, since Jimbo added a new speedy deletion criterion. In fact, since there is talk of completely revamping image tagging due to copyright reasons, this template will eventually need to be deleted. Titoxd 22:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant with {{no source}}. BlankVerse ∅ 23:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlankVerse. ∞Who?¿? 04:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{no source}} - if anyone uses this tag and gets a redlink, they'll use fairuse. If they use it and get a "find the source or this gets deleted after a week", maybe they'll think twice. - SoM 23:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{no source}}, per SoM. Superm401 | Talk 08:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not an image is fair use has nothing to do with whether a source is known. Wikipedians should be allowed to upload images and {{fuus}} them as long as they demonstrate that fair use criteria have been met. --Mm35173 21:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three out of the four criteria for evaluating "fair use" cannot be evaluated without knowing the source, so although it may be "fair use", it cannot be determined. --Carnildo 22:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to read this as being ok to redirect to {{no source}} since several have supported it, and Titoxd's comment would also suggest s/he is happy with this.-Splashtalk 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Not_deleted/September_2005&oldid=1089908817"