Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to current discussions

Shortcut: WP:TFD

Deletion discussions Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review Deletion policy Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

edit

Purge the cache to refresh this page

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed. Templates are used to insert blocks of common material into multiple pages, often for standardization purposes.

Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised.

Template undeletion is not discussed on this page, but on Deletion review.

Please note that stub templates should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Deprecated and orphaned templates can be listed here.

[edit] What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD)

Speedy deletion

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Stub templates

List, normally with the corresponding stub category, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Policy or guideline template

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it cannot be listed at TfD separately. It should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline takes place.

Userboxes

List at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

Template redirects

List at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.

Renaming a template

List at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

So what's left for TfD?

Other templates not listed above, including most templates in the template namespace. A nomination here may be appropriate whenever one or more of the following apply:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks);
4. The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement.

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus, nor do these criteria apply in all cases (for example, templates meant to be transcluded in user space, like other content there, need not meet NPOV).

If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

[edit] How to use this page

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace TemplateName (do not include the namespace identifier "Template:") & template with the name of the template to be deleted)

I	Edit the template. Enter the following text in the top of the template or inside the box (where applicable): {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} or {{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} This code will work as is; there is no need to replace PAGENAME with the actual page name. Please include "nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. Also, try to minimise page disruption by using the Preview button to check the revised template, as its new look will be visible on all pages that use it. Do not blank the template. If you are nominating multiple templates, set the parameter TemplateName to the name of the header of the deletion discussion. If a template is meant to be substituted, wrap the {{tfd}} or {{tfd-inline}} in <noinclude> tags. For example, <noinclude>{{tfd|TemplateName}}</noinclude>.
II	Create its TfD subsection. Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of TfD for today's entries. Add this text to the section, at the top: {{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. — ~~~~}} Note that TemplateName should be replaced by the template's name excluding the Template: namespace. Suggest what action should be taken for the template.
III	Give due notice. Please consider adding {{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} — ~~~~ on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the template's talk page.

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

See the deletion process page for instructions on how to close a TfD discussion.

[edit] Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to vote "keep until orphaned" or similar. Please instead phrase it as "delete" or "delete after orphaning".

Contents 1 What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) 2 How to use this page 3 Discussion 4 Current discussions 4.1 May 28 4.2 May 27 4.2.1 Template:PD-Mexico-NIP 4.2.2 Template:Fraternity Leadership Association 4.2.3 Template:1968 Detroit Tigers roster 4.2.4 Template:Lincoln 1970 4.2.5 Template:Page d 4.2.6 Template:Current mars lander mission 4.2.7 Template:Tagalog 4.2.8 Template:Democrat 4.3 May 26 4.3.1 Template:Ministry box office header 4.3.2 Template:Wrong title templates 4.3.3 Template:Distinct 4.3.4 Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Accredited Programs 4.3.5 Template:WIKICRUFTWARN 4.3.6 Football templates 4.3.7 Template:Threat4 4.3.8 Template:uw-layout 4.3.9 Template:uw-ifu3im 4.4 May 25 4.4.1 Template:Front Row Motorsports 4.4.2 Template:British songs 4.4.3 Template:WA U.S. Routes and Template:WA Interstate 4.4.4 Template:Campeonato Assotiation da Guiné-Bissau 4.4.5 Template:Northern Ireland Assembly Parties 4.5 May 24 4.5.1 Template:Ladnav 4.5.2 Template:Scarface 4.5.3 Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs 4.6 May 23 4.6.1 Template:Img-confirmation 4.6.2 Template:French-Canadian television classics 4.7 May 22 4.7.1 Template:Lifetime 4.7.2 Template:WPCanada Navigation 4.7.3 Template:The GO-PCHS-NJROTC Antivandal Barnstar 4.7.4 Template:Playstations 4.7.5 Template:Foreignchar 4.8 May 21 4.8.1 Template:Sumerian rulers, Template:Notable Sumerians 4.8.2 Template:Little Rock neighborhoods 4.8.3 Template:Male Golf Tour Leaders 4.8.4 Template:AmEng notice 5 Old discussions 5.1 May 20 5.1.1 Template:Cite cd notes 5.1.2 Template:Merge-school 5.1.3 Template:GFDL-presumed-ast 5.1.4 Template:GFDL-presumed-ca 5.1.5 Template:LoveBlossoms 5.1.6 Template:GFDL-1.2 5.1.7 Template:User 911truth 5.1.8 Template:Sectstub 5.2 May 19 5.2.1 Template:Current sport-related 5.2.2 Template:Wales Under-20 Squad - 2008 IRB Junior World Championships 5.2.3 Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ja 5.2.4 Template:Inuse 5.2.5 Template:Current tennis tournament 5.3 May 18 5.3.1 Template:Celia 5.3.2 Template:Hollyoaks character 5.3.3 Template:British politics 5.3.4 Template:Bre Banca Lannutti Cuneo 5.3.5 Template:Bhakti TV - LIVE 5.3.6 Template:BW21 5.3.7 Template:Arkas Spor Izmir 5.3.8 Template:Allan De Genova 5.3.9 Template:IQ and the Wealth of Nations 5.4 May 17 5.4.1 Template:GNU-Layout 5.4.2 AfD voting templates 5.5 May 16 5.5.1 Template:Death date and 81 5.5.2 Template:User Shia 3 5.6 May 15 5.6.1 Template:Eif 5.6.2 Template:Resolved comments 5.6.3 Spanish football club logo templates 5.6.4 Template:Irish songs 5.6.5 Template:FootnotesSmall 5.6.6 Template:TooManyTags 5.6.7 Template:Footer Movies Chiranjeevi 5.6.8 Template:Good Liar Barnstar 5.6.9 Template:PD-LOC 5.6.10 Template:User Shia 2 6 Completed discussions 6.1 Closing discussions 6.2 To convert 6.3 To orphan 6.4 Ready for deletion 7 Archive and Indices

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] May 28

[edit] May 27

[edit] Template:PD-Mexico-NIP

Template:PD-Mexico-NIP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is only transcluded on two images, and is deprecated. It should be subst'ed and deleted or replaced with {{pd-because}}. Also, as a note, if an administrator would like to place a deletion notice on the page, it would be appreciated (it is, inexplicably, protected). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fraternity Leadership Association

Template:Fraternity Leadership Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable organization, template is not useful for navigation. Should be deleted and all reference to it removed in articles. --Explodicle (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the nominator's rationale. Navigation boxes should at least provide some useful navigation between article, but I don't think this one does that. The organization isn't particularly notable, so I don't even think using a category would be useful here either. --CapitalR (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:1968 Detroit Tigers roster

Template:1968 Detroit Tigers roster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A team sports roster does not really apply to a single season. The roster changes throughout the season and there it doesn't make sense to take a "snapshot" of it during the season or at the end of the season. The information about what players that were on a team is better represented with individual player statistics. Also, this template is incomplete. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: sports roster templates should be saved for especially notable teams or occasions. Terraxos (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lincoln 1970

Template:Lincoln 1970 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This timeline template is unneeded when Template:Lincoln vehicles already covers 1970 to present. — Vossanova ^o< 14:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete redundant to {{tl|Lincoln vehicles]], no need for it. Also slightly confusing. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant to existing template. Terraxos (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Page d

Template:Page d (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template is intended for mainspace edits but is only of interest to editors. Linking to explicit disambiguation page redirects is a better solution. At minimum the template should not produce any visible content on the pages that use it, preferably IMO the template should be deleted. — Taemyr (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Modify so it is invisible to readers (ie do not display icon in article). PamD (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for it. bogdan (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Current mars lander mission

Template:Current mars lander mission (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Way too narrow in scope. The one article that has this should just have the {{Current spaceflight}} tag. If there is agreement on this, and this template is deleted, someone should update the Phoenix (spacecraft) article to use the aforementioned template instead. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed, too narrow in scope. I can see what the argument is for having it, as it isn't really a "spaceflight" now that it has landed. I think the best course of action would be to delete this, and put an optional parameter into {{current spaceflight}} so it can be modified for such missions. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 09:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - True, such a parameter is an option. However, the template already reads "current or recent", which is certainly accurate. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There is also a Template:Current rover mission, which is also narrow in scope but accepted. This template simply didn't exist until now because there was no mars lander mission until now (during the history of Wikipedia). But I can imagine to change it from "mars lander" to "Lander (spacecraft)" (and of course move it to "Current lander mission"), for use at all lander missions, may they be at mars, titan or europe. There's a good chance we'll see more lander missions in the future, since there's another in planning for either titan or europe, and sample return missions in planning for mars. ColdCase (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that the second one existed. If it is nominated for deletion I will support it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Template:Current mars lander mission and Template:Current rover mission per nom and GW, and Rename (and rephrase) Template:Current spaceflight to Template:Current space mission to be all inclusive. Keyed In (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge into {{Current spaceflight}}, per Keyed In above. I don't see the need for separate 'current' templates for spaceflights and lander missions - they can all be covered by one template. Terraxos (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tagalog

Template:Tagalog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Duplicates interwiki sidebar functionality. --- RockMFR 03:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – as per nom. Superfluous. Jared Preston (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - only used in a few articles (which already have the interwiki added) and has limited scope for use. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:09, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Democrat

Michaelbeckham/Dem (talk · contribs)

StuffOfInterest/Userboxes/User democrat (talk · contribs)

are duplicates of

QzDaddy/dem (talk · contribs)

They should all be merged. 151.197.123.128 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any reason that this is a problem within userspace? Ral315 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge per nom - all redundant to one another. Terraxos (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 26

[edit] Template:Ministry box office header

Template:Ministry box office header (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

For some oddball reason, someone thought the Canadian ministry templates, and those templates only (as opposed to thousands of other articles across the encyclopedia), requires that succession box use specific rows for saying "predecessor", "office" and "successor" (why there is an absolute need for a complicated series of templates that essentially duplicate the existing SBS project is anyone's guess). Circeus (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, but maybe the "absolute need" stems from the fact that it importantly designates under which specific Premier (administration) the person served? Could you tell me what and where is the "existing SBS project?" Jonathan Logan (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes in general are developed at WP:SBS (WikiProject Succession Box Standardization). I can explain the general issues separately, right now I'm really finding this (and {{Ministry box title header}}, which I had not noticed) pointless in current presentation and implementation. Circeus (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now A quick look at some Canadian politician articles show that they seem to follow their own standard for succession boxes. Deleting this right now would just cause more problems. First step is to convert Canadian politicians to use WP:SBS templates. This should be stayed until that happens. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just don't see why this can't be included directly into the templates instead of being made a subtemplates as it is now. And the presentation with an extra row is ridiculously overthinking. It looks like we're talking down to the readers. Circeus (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wrong title templates

Template:Wrong title templates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not used, not needed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Distinct

Template:Distinct (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was used on two articles, B Velorum and Q Velorum, to put two articles on one page. I have since fixed this by splitting the articles apart, leaving this template orphaned. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Now totally useless due to articles being fixed through disambiguation. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:48, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unless this template has some possible use that I'm missing. Terraxos (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Accredited Programs

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Accredited Programs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU External Links (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Information (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU References (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/box-header (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Campus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Global Partners (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Institutions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Vision&Mission (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Courses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU History (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU News (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Bulacan State University/box-footer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Improper usage of above templates to format article text boxes to produce a homepage look for the main page Bulacan State University. Delete and revert article itself to preceding version where this was text inside.— Tikiwont (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wow... I have reverted the article back to a basically encyclopedic version. Oh, and delete all these templates, Wikipedia is not a webhost, even for places that do warrant a (proper) article. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:05, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All The design is nice, but this is an encyclopedia. JPG-GR (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. This goes against the basic standard look of Wikipedia's articles. Midorihana みどりはな 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all – as per above. Jared Preston (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WIKICRUFTWARN

[edit] Football templates

Template:Portugal Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:England Squad 1968 European Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:England Squad 1980 European Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:England Squad 1988 European Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Added by Woody

Template:England Squad 2004 European Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:England Squad 2000 European Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:England Squad 1996 European Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:England Squad 1992 European Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all per previous and long-standing WP:FOOTY consensus that only FIFA World Cup templates should exist. - Darwinek (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all - I doubt many people were aware of the 'vote' given that there were few Euro squads in existence. The Euro's are a major tournament, and as such a worthy navbox.Londo06 10:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Euro is surely a major tournament but we obey our community consensus. - Darwinek (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I have added three more to the list. I think these templates are a template too far. They serve little encyclopedic purpos and are highly unlikely to be used as navigational tools. They seem to me to have become a vanity template only serving to emphasise that they participated in a particular tournament. Simply put, they are unneccessary. Woody (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all - I believe that squad template for top-level continental championships (Copa America, European Championships, African Cup of Nations etc.) ARE notable, certainly more so than squad templates for lower-league club sides which no-one seems to have problems with. GiantSnowman 11:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, they should be speedy deleted per housekeeping rule - rules are rules. If you believe similar templates should be used - try to start a new discussion on WP:FOOTY about it. They are all wrongly named by the way. - Darwinek (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise, what should they be named, I merely took the existing 1988 Championship structure and went with that. Also under what rationale would be be a candidate for speedy?Londo06 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Per housekeeping rule - it was applied already in the past several times. As for the names, try to look at article names of the Euros - it should be named according to them, i.e. UEFA Euro 2000 etc.. However, wait with the moves for the result of this TFD, if kept they should be moved to proper names. - Darwinek (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with lower-league squad templates then nominate them for deletion, but they are a different navigational tool. They are for current lists, something a reader might want to explore. I fail to see the usefulness of a template for every two years played for a national team. See Michael Owen#External links for an example of how the noise-usefulness ratio is increased hugely. Woody (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy per housekeeping does not apply - no opinion on actual TfD. Agathoclea (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all The WP:Football consensus comes from only a handful of editors. Most of the concerns seemed to come from the template over-whelming short stubby articles. Most of the articles on English international footballers are now well beyond that state and so these templates serve as useful navigational tools. Catchpole (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you vote if e.g. Russian or Turkish Euro squads would be nominated? As for the consensus, it is true it is kind oldish but its spirit says clearly what do to in similar cases, if these templates will be kept new discussion and consensus should be made. - Darwinek (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends. Looking at the Turkey 96 squad you can find several well developed articles that would benefit from the template. The 72 USSR squad is mostly stubs, but they were losing finalists and we should try and avoid our recentist bias. I think an argument could be made to have templates for both. Catchpole (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we cannot be selective. If we say Euro squads should be allowed, it means ALL Euro squads. If we say Euro squads should be allowed because it is the highest national teams tournament in Europe, then ALL similar tournaments from ALL continents should be allowed to have own squad navboxes too. - Darwinek (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as per long standing consensus on WikiProject football that only World Cup squads are notable. - fchd (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all, I believe that squad templates for the 2nd highest tier of international football (European Championships, Copa America, African Cup of Nations, etc) are not simply vanity templates, I have used the similar World Cup templates as navigational tools ever since my early days of contributing to WP:FOOTY. The "long standing consensus" against came from a long time before the proliferation of this type of template was allowed to go unchecked and there is an open discussion on the subject at WP:FOOTY which pre-dates this nomination. I would say that any article using more than 3 current squad, tournament squad or managerial position templates should use the Super-collapse template to avoid unsightly piles of navboxes at the bottom of the most successful manager and player articles. People who dislike them would then never even have to set eyes on them. EP 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hiding them solves nothing, why have them in the first place if you only want to further hide them? I will repeat what I said earlier: If you disagree with lower-league squad templates then nominate them for deletion, but they are a different navigational tool. They are for current lists, something a reader might want to explore. I fail to see the usefulness of a template for every two years played for a national team. See Michael Owen#External links for an example of how the noise-usefulness ratio is increased hugely. Woody (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally, I find these snapshots of sides useful and easier to navigate than our squad articles. Not all of us are only interested in current footballers. Catchpole (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per Woody. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep looking through at the community I have found these recent additions useful, especially for the players who you didn't think made it it to a major championship. Also for more established players super collapse may be a real option. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all I find them a useful navigational tool. They are encyclopedic in content. They are definatly notable (as would ones for Copa America or African cup of nations etc.). Most succesful players have lots of these already the addition of one or two will make no difference. For example see Sven-Göran Eriksson, the removal of the one box will make no difference to the overall clutter the super callapse seems like a reasonable solution.Pbradbury (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Should we not be attempting to combat the clutter such as Sven-Göran Eriksson, rather than try to add to it. I say that as the person who made the manager history templates. Woody (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. But I don't believe removing valuable content is the way to do that. I do however think the supercollapse box works quite well. Pbradbury (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all The random teammates a random player had in a random year is non-defining to that player. Resolute 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually it's encyclopidic and it's standard practice. The question is whether continental competitions warrent that treatment. Pbradbury (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If it is encyclopedic to list the members of a random team, then write an article on that team. However, I continue to maintain that the random teammates a player played with in a random tournament is not a defining attribute of that player. And, frankly, this includes the World Cup templates as well. Resolute 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually its not standard practice, these sorts of nav boxes have been getting deleted more and more lately. The highest level championships for the basketball and for ice hockey recently were deleted via tfd in the last month alone. (and have been so numerous times in the past). Olympic medalist templates have also been deleted in the past. It is actually fairly common to delete these types of templates as non-defining of the player they are on. Especially since they fail WP:EMBED. -Djsasso (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete 2000 and 2004 as recreated material (see here and here) and delete the rest as well. Qwghlm (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is currently a discussion ongoing at WP:FOOTY which came up with the original consensus that was the reason the above two cited case were deleted. The conversation has changed also just because something was discussed before does not mean the right decision was made. As you can see from this thread there is no consensus. The two discussions you cite had no opposition, it seems opinion has changed. Pbradbury (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There is a discussion at Footy but it is insular at the moment. Yes, WP:CONSENSUS can change, but remember this is not a vote. It is judged on the merits of the argument weighted in policy. Simply saying ILIKEIT is unhelpful. Woody (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed. However I haven't simply said I like it. I think it is encyclopedic, I think it is notable, and I think it is a good navigational device. What I am struggling with in this discussion is – the question of whether these kind of devices should be used seems to be accepted as yes (given current team, world cup etc.). The arguments posted here apply equaly to those aformentioned templates. If we accept that these are a valid form of displaying information in Wikipedia then the only question that remains is whether continental competitions such as Euro 2004 warrent one of these devices. I say they qualify since they are notable. The larger question of whether we use these devices at all and whether they provide value should be a seperate discussion. Paul  Bradbury 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
        • This is not a question of notability, the squads are notable, that is not under debate. Whether they provide any use is the question that we need to ask. The managers templates are different as they provide an overview, whereas these provide a random snapshot with little to none navigational value. Woody (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
          • So how is that different from the World Cup squads which are considered acceptable? Paul  Bradbury 20:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
            • To me, there isn't much. Yet, the World Cup is inherently the most notable (I know this isn't about notability, but run with it), the most recognisable, and the most used in terms of navigation. Woody (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
              • OK, but that sems inconsistent. My problem here is I can't at this point agree or disagree since I don't know the conditions upon what we are discussing. Can someone state clearly the reasons that this is a bad thing. Please relate those to Wikipedia Policys where appropriate. Are we discussing squad templates and their value? Are we discussing the notability of squad templates? It is difficult to put together a cogent argument for or against a topic if it is not clearly defined. So in short why are these templates Tfd? Please do not refer back to anpother discussion (I have read them) please summarise your issues. This way I can agree or disagree in an informed manner. Paul  Bradbury 20:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• (unindent) my points, Resolute's and Oldelpaso's. Simply, these are of no navigational value. They are not an adequate replacement for prose. See Michael Owen#External links for an example of how the noise-usefulness ratio is increased hugely with these templates. They offer nothing on top of the text. Woody (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Those comments don't cover it. I agree they are not a replacement for prose, however they are an addition to it. Some things are better captured in a list, people digest information in different ways. I'll ask again, Specifically why are these different to the World Cup templates? I see no argument that holds water other than notability, which everyone seems to agree that these tournaments are notable. The fact that some articles have a miriade of these boxes is irrelevant to this discussion. I agree that it is a problem, but that problem should be discussed in another thread (and is being). While it is acceptable policy to have this device, then what qualifys for this device is the only discussion we should be having. If there are reasons other than notability for that then please raise them. Paul  Bradbury 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Those comments do cover it, you choose to disregard them, that is your prerogative. As to the myriad of boxes, that is the idea of this discussion, simply put we don't need them and they clutter up the page. That is a problem, and their continued existence needs to be justified. The same can be said for the World Cup templates, if you think they should be deleted, then nominate them once this discussion has finished. Do not simply say that other shit exists and think that justifies their existence. We are an encyclopedia, these templates are in articles not lists. Articles are made of prose, not garish lists, ergo these need to be deleted. Woody (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not strying to start a fight here. I didn't build and of these templates, I stumbled acrross this discussion. The problem I have is that this is a Tfd for these specific articles, it is not a discussion about whether this type of article should exist. Given the following:
        • This is an apropriate way to convey this information (as demonstarted by world cup squad lists)
        • These are notable events (as agreed generally)

Regarding your comment that I should Tfd the World Cup squads, I won't because I believe they provide value. However if you wish to do so please go ahead, however this should be a seperate discussion to this one. On that note please confine your reasons for deleting these templates to these templates. If you have issues with this type of template please raise them in a seperate discussion. Again I really am not trying to be confrontational, I just want to seperate the issues and talk about them seperatly, I really do think I understand your underlying frustration. Paul  Bradbury 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per previous TfDs of similar templates and per Woody. Templates are not a substitute for content. Inclusion in a squad for a tournament should be dealt with in prose, not boilerplated in template form to the point that prominent figures have more than a screens' worth of templates. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. We cannot squeze every little piece of related information into an article, even if it could be useful for some readers. It does not make sense to list every player Sven-Göran Eriksson has ever managed. That information is logically located in the corresponding team articles, unless there are some players that are specifically important for Sven's career. I do not say that the England squad for the European Championship 2004 is not interesting, I just say that it should not be located in the article about Sven-Göran Eriksson. The WP:EMBED guideline says: When deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article. These templates provide links to many players that are not, and will never be, featured in the article. Keepin the number of links and navigation boxes down makes it easier to locate the truly relevant information. Focus and highlight the most relevant topics, and avoid the rest. The squad information can still be easily found one or two clicks away. --Kildor (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Again this argument is not related to the discusion at hand, it is equally applicable to the World Cup templates. The question is why should we delte these templates. I have seen no argument that relates to that that does not relate to the World Cup templates. Please clarify objections in relation to these templtes specifically and not to this type of template. Paul  Bradbury 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • My arguments may be valid for deletion of World Cup templates as well. But it does not make them less valid for this discussion. --Kildor (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you address the concerns Pbradbury without referring to the World Cup templates? Woody (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The World Cup templates should be deleted as well. Your arguement at the moment is very much an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • OK here goes, since there are two questions I'll try and answer them both, the second one first.
        • Actualey WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states the following But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. The point here being that other major football tournaments use this type of template and so the discussion is whether continental cups should also be allowed to use this type of temaplate. Not whether this is a valid type of template.
        • Can I justify this without refering to the World Cup templates? That is more difficult, but here goes, I don't see it violating WP:EMBED I see this as a lower order related link list. I think they provide significant navigational value. I believe the topic is a notable one. The list is not random, in fact it is finite. I am concerned about the poliferation of these devices however I believe that is being addressed effectively at WP:FOOTY. The content is encyclopedic and I have yet to see a compeling reason to remove it. Paul  Bradbury 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • So you are both agreeing with WP:FOOTY's attempt to only have them for World Cups (ie handling the proliferation of them) and you are also disagreeing with it by saying you can't see why these particular ones should be removed. So you are arguing both sides? -Djsasso (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • EMBED refers to lists, not to navigational templates, as such that point is invalid. The "discussion" at Footy is discussing how to hide the problem away and not tackle it directly, this TFD however, is trying to attack their proliferation. Your argument is based on the fact that the World Cup templates exist so there should be able to as well; that is a flawed argument. Just delete the World Cup lists as well. I say again, this discussion is about how valid these templates are. Woody (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I would note that in my opinion a nav box would be exactly the type of list embed is talking about. But everything else you say is dead on. -Djsasso (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
            • As Woody said I am refering to the ongoing discussion and vote at WP:FOOTY not the previous concensus, which appears to no longer hold true. Although I disagree with his charactorisation of it. If you want to broaden this into a discussion about the type of template then start a thread about that and Tfd the lot of them. That is not what this current thread is about. Happy to discuss if you wish to take that step, however please stop backing up your argument by saying they should all be gone unless you are willing to do that. This Tfd relates to the articles listed for Tfd at the top of this thread only. Paul  Bradbury 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I am willing to do that and have actually been doing it over the last while, just waiting on a DRV to close on one of the previous deletes before I move onto the next sport which might as well be soccer/football. These nav boxes have been in a process of systematically being removed for awhile now in various sports. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all – I find them incredibly useful and do not agree with the above delete arguments. Jared Preston (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - It is not defining that a given player played with another particular player in any given year. It is defining to the team for sure but not to the individual player. WP:EMBED says that links in such boxes should only include articles which would otherwise already be featured in the article. Every player a player played with on any given team is not going to be featured in that players article. In the last month two equivalent types of templates have been completely removed via tfd. Stanley Cup championships for the NHL and NBA championships for basketball. -Djsasso (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW WP:EMBED contains links in the infobox at the bottom that are not featured in the main article ;) Paul  Bradbury 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't say which are featured. It says which would be expected to be featured. I would expect most of those links on a quick glance to be mentioned in that page. And they pass the "Where would the reader likely go next?" criteria. I don't believe any reader would likely go next to some player who played one shift in a game on the same team as that player next. Some players should be linked in the player page, but a box having all the players should not. -Djsasso (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I respectfully disagree I use them all the time and find them very helpful. I can't imagine I am the only person to do so. Paul  Bradbury 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Basically the usefullness comes down to this, would it not be easier to link to a page about the winning teams tournament (ie like listing the winning team at UEFA Euro 2008 for example) where it lists all the players on the roster, rather than a template. To get to a player page via a template it takes atleast three clicks, one to open the box that holds the templates, one to open the template, and one to click on the player. (on players who have multiple nav boxes, which convention would say should be hidden by a collapsing container). Whereas if its linked in the article in prose or in the infobox (where I would prefer to see championship teams listed) it would be two clicks. -Djsasso (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • OK now thats an argument that has merit. My counter to that is that a click is different to a page refresh. It is much quicker and easier espicially on slow connections to click three times than refresh a page once. I have a fast dedicated connection and I can get to the information quicker and easier via the infobox than having to click to a page and then to the player. Also from a usabilty stand point I know that on any footballer article if I want that information at a glance I can consistently find it in the same place and format. Prose will not do that for you.Paul  Bradbury 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Depends on how you look at it. I find that the amount of time it takes to find the expand button on each of the boxes probably evens out the page load times. I am on a fast connections so I can't say for sure but I know page loads are faster for me than having to expand a million nav boxes. So many nav boxes with so many links to very minorly related topics effectively mask the links to the more important topics. Finding the link you want amoungst a large number of extremely loosely related articles is an issue. Secondly if you want to know where to find a link every time, that would effectively be what the categories at the bottom of the page are for. And yes I know categories and boxes are not mutually exclusive. -Djsasso (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Threat4

Template:Threat4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

We don't make last warnings before blocking for legal threats, we block until the legal threat is retracted. Therefore this template conflicts with established policy. MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per current policy. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, under WP:CSD#T2 (blatant misrepresentation of established policy). Terraxos (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:uw-layout

Template:Uw-layout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is intended to warn a user for something that is not against any Wikipedia policy or guideline, or even an accepted practice. See previous discussion at WT:UW#Layout warning .7B.7Buw-layout.7D.7D. Anomie⚔ 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Rewrite or delete. The UWW's templates are generally well-written and organized, but as Anomie says, they are by no means "mandated". I don't think the "efficiency" point is compelling either -- it's easy enough to read and interpret a brief "stop vandalizing" notice. Still, if members of the UWW want some kind of similar notice, I'm sure it would be fine if the language were modified so as to remove the misleading implications. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Rewrite or delete per above. Very often I just use the old test templates, depending on the situation. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: For the "rewrite" !votes above, how would you rewrite it? I can't see the point in annoying someone with a warning that says "Please consider using the layout suggested by a few people over at WP:UW that is in no way required and that almost no one actually uses". Anomie⚔ 11:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Something like "you may want to consider using these templates to enable you and others to deal with vandalism more efficiently". The UWW's templates are pretty widespread -- not required of course, but lots of users (myself included) like to use them instead of rewriting similar messages from scratch. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks like I was confusing the UWW's template with the UWW's proposed layout. You're right, the layout isn't really standardized. Still, I wouldn't be opposed keeping the template if the misleading rhetoric were removed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The UWW's layout for warnings is really just a suggestion, and one that is rarely used in practice. Under those circumstances, I can't see much value to this template, however it is worded.--Kubigula (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:uw-ifu3im

Template:Uw-ifu3im (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This warning template is redundant to {{uw-ifu4im}}, and generally an "only warning" in uw style warning templates is named as uw-*4im rather than uw-*3im. Anomie⚔ 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Use {{Uw-ifu3}} instead, since it has better wording for this warning level, and is the one linked from {{Uw-ifu4im}}. I guess that a few redirects are needed to unify the naming of this template. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't add anything but my agreement to the analysis above.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 25

[edit] Template:Front Row Motorsports

Template:Front Row Motorsports (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Team is not notable enough for a template. Teams like Hendrick Motorsports and Roush Fenway Racing have earned them due to success and increased partnerships. D-Day (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Success does not dictate if a topic gets a nav template or not. The main factors that are important are the number of articles and the usefulness of the template. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, very few articles are needed for this template. It doesn't serve much of a purpose, since all of the articles already link back to that template. --D-Day (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:British songs

Template:British songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:Irish_songs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patriotic songs— Gnevin (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep A convenient navigation tool, providing a list that is otherwise lacking on Wikipedia. FusionWarrior (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Define partiotic, possibly fails WP:OR. Snappy56 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - far too vague template, and I'm not convinced there's any need to navigate between these articles. If it is needed, a category would be better, as it could specify precise inclusion criteria. Terraxos (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WA U.S. Routes and Template:WA Interstate

Template:WA U.S. Routes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:WA Interstate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't see the point of this; we already have Category:U.S. Highways in Washington and Category:Interstate Highways in Washington. — NE2 14:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The templates are used for navagation purposes between all of those highways. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to navigate between two of them (which I really don't see why you would), you can click on the category link. --NE2 15:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do other states have these templates? (At first glance, the answer appears to be no, but I could be wrong.) I don't much see the use of them, but the same logic that applied to state highway templates (that you could use the browsing in the infobox to navigate) doesn't apply here. -- Kéiryn (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Campeonato Assotiation da Guiné-Bissau

Template:Campeonato Assotiation da Guiné-Bissau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There's no such league nor teams. The lower league is [1]. — Calapez (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - template listing non existent teams [?!] whose articles are currently up for AfD. Articles are likely hoaxes, making template useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:26, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
After seeing that per the relevant AfDs the teams indeed exist, I thought that the discussion here about the league needs some updating, and the arguments further documentation. Therefore, relisted! Thank you!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Northern Ireland Assembly Parties

Template:Northern Ireland Assembly Parties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is unused and is redundant to Template:Political parties in Northern Ireland. The editor who created it was probably unaware of the other existing template. It should be deleted. Snappy56 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - entirely redundant to existing template. Terraxos (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 24

[edit] Template:Ladnav

Template:Ladnav (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Really not seeing the purpose to this template. Unused and not in current warning scheme. MBisanz ^talk 07:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Since these templates are subst'ed, it's impossible to know if they are in use or not. Older warning templates have generally been kept as an alternative to the mainstream ones. I'm not sure if I personally would use such a template, but Radiant's rationale on the talk page seems pretty reasonable "Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek. But way too many people resort to spurious accusations of e.g. vandalism whenever in a dispute. >Radiant< 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" -- Ned Scott 06:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Aside from being currently unused, it links the recipient to WP:DICK, which is itself pretty uncivil and generally discouraged. We have better warning templates for this purpose. Terraxos (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Scarface

Template:Scarface (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No real navigation value. Only contains four links. It used to be primarily for linking to various character articles, but all of those articles (except for Tony Montana) have been deleted or merged after their subjects were deemed not notable enough to have separate articles about them. No point in holding on to the template. — Hnsampat (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• weak keep With Tony Montana and Scarface (soundtrack), that ups it to six. I also think maybe a "list of characters" page could have been made as an alternative to a straight redirect for those past articles (something should at least be said about the main characters). Still a small amount of links, sure, but it's still useful. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not simply have a list of characters on the main Scarface (1983 film) page? There's really no need to have a separate page, given that this is only one film that spawned no sequels or no other instances where the characters became recurring. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It depends on how much there is to say about them, but you are right, at this point it could easily go on the parent article. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This is fairly redundant to me, everything on the template is also present on the 1983 film page, including mention of the 1932 film. I hate to see these sorts of templates pop up. The more that pop up, the more crowded article pages get. I'm not even a fan of the awards templates that seem to have proliferated this year. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Not a hugely useful template, but these articles are all on the same subject, and don't all link to one another already, so the template helps. Six related articles is enough to justify a navbox, IMO. Terraxos (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs

Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There are multiple things wrong with this template, and a better template that is in use is found at Template:VaisnavaSampradayas. The template is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu-centric, with the caption stating "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu united four sampradayas into one", and with the bottom line pointing to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. There are also problems with the v•d•e (view/discuss/edit) links, which all point to the corresponding links on Template:VaisnavaSampradayas. This template also only points to the leaders of each sampradaya, while Template:VaisnavaSampradayas correctly points to both the sampradayas and their leaders, as well as linking to their associated philosophies. Template:VaisnavaSampradayas is more complete, accurate, NPOV, and has no (known) link problems. For these reasons I think Template:VaisnavaSampradayas should be used and Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs deleted. Some members of WP:VAISHNAVA have agreed that this template be deleted and the other template be used instead. Also, this template is currently used only on a user page, while the other is in use on actual articles. It would be deleted under WP:CSD#G7 (because the author has supported deletion) as well as WP:CSD#T3. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - This is clearly an earlier template, its unused and should have been deleted under speedy deletion procedures.Wikidās-ॐ 06:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. No articles seem to be using it, although it is now referenced on many talk pages. =Axlq 06:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note- since its clearly a mistake and is not referenced to any article, it should be deleted without a delay, as the snow will just keep rolling. Wikidās-ॐ 06:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be deleted under WP:CSD#T3, which means that the TfD must stand for 7 days. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ATG ^Contact 09:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant, better template available.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – as per nom. Jared Preston (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 23

[edit] Template:Img-confirmation

Template:Img-confirmation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template states that permission for images has been sent to the PR department (now the Communications committee) to release the work under the GFDL. All permissions are now logged with OTRS and the relevant template (eg {{PermissionOTRS}}) should be used instead. The template is currently unused and should be deleted. mattbr 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:French-Canadian television classics

Template:French-Canadian television classics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Completely subjective and POV template. One person's classic is another person's dreck. No way to make this objective. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Moderate delete Agreed about the POVness. And since the majority of the template is redlinked anyway, I don't see how we could benefit by keeping it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 11:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "Classics" is a violation of Neutral point of view UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Apart from the fact that it is a massive NPOV violation due to the inherently subjective inclusion criteria, most of the links are red. While this is not a bad thing per se, when coupled with the first it makes this template thoroughly useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:28, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – as per nom. Jared Preston (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Having primarily redlinks is not an argument if those links are notable, such as they are here. I checked, suspecting that maybe this was a programming block of vintage TV or a DVD series, but these would not be enough to make a template out of anyway. Circeus (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 22

[edit] Template:Lifetime

Template:Lifetime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Context: Template:Lifetime through it three parameters add {{DEFAULTSORT: ZZZZ}}, [[Categegory:XXXX births]], and [[Category: YYYY deaths]].

This template complicates an otherwise simple process of adding a birth and death category and DEFAULTSORT. It impedes our ability to order categories as we see fit. It also decreases readability when editing categories on an article. Furthermore, arbitrary mass changes (31 for the minute of 17:37, 22 May 2008) sometimes improperly have created a real need for this issue to get formal attention. — gren グレン 22:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikisyntax is hard for newbies and this template make it even harder. This template may make editing easier for some experienced users, but for the rest it is just another template we have to learn for something that we could do perfectly with regular wikisyntax. I sugget that we keep the template, but have a bot a (smackbot?) go after us and subst it as we use it. That way those who are familiar with the template can keep using it. Rettetast (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to that but users using this template currently are not adding this where the templates didn't previously exist but removing the categories to add this template. gren グレン 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I see from below that you can use {{lived}} instead and then it would be better to delete " lifetime. Rettetast (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The problems occurred are many. Editors can use {{Lived}} which subst and is automatically replaced by defaultsort and the categories. Having this template around gives us 2 different ways to do things and this occurs to edit wars. Some editors are replacing defaultsort with this one and some other are doing the opposite. The other way is simpler (no need to read instructions of one more template), it's more clear, better in searching. Even if I liked this template in the beginning, now I think we have to delete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Template was previously named {{BIRTH-DEATH-SORT}} and was considered for deletion on 2008 January 30. The result of that discussion was to keep. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Well, because I am the one who nominated. The result was keep against the old lifetime. We had two templates doing the same job and we kept the least worse. It's seems now that we don't need any. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with User:Rettetast: I don't like templates that force editors to learn a specific wiki syntax that can be handled with a simpler, more intuitive process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The cons outweigh the few pros for this template. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This template handles missing birth years and living people categories. It is much easier to update from missing to a specific year, and it reminds editors to keep living people in the right category so they can be monitored more easily for BLP violations. Once both birth and death years are known, it seems wise to subst the template, but not before. It certainly seems unwise to delete the template. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Beyond the birth and death categories, this template also adds articles to the Living people or Birth year missing categories. Gary King (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

C This can be done by adding the correct categories as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that. But it's a useful template for those who know how to use it. An article's birth and death dates are also unlikely to change often, so it won't be information in an article that will be edited a lot. Gary King (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A guideline telling that "if both born and death categories exist, lifetime should not be used" would be sufficient? Because, we certainly need something more specific here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't lifetime be used if both birth and death years are known? Lifetime works when either the birth or death year are known, or when they are both known, or when neither are known. It can be used in all circumstances. For An Angel (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Magioladitis didn't say "if both birth and death years are known", but "if both born and death categories exist". Crucial difference, since most of the usages of this template seem not to be by people who were "assisted" in adding YoB, YoD, or defaultsort by this template, but by replacing existing information in the form of explicit categories (and magic word). That's not helping anyone, as far as I can see, it's simply enforcing a personal markup preference for which there is, to say the least, a lack of any explicit consensus. Alai (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP This template is easy to use, more functional and efficient than using defaultsort by itself. How hard is it to understand {{lifetime|birthyear|deathyear|sortkey}}? If someone doesn't know how to use it then they don't have to use it. Let those who know how it works add it to articles. Or you can put in the few seconds it takes to learn how to use it yourself. But there's no reason to delete it. For An Angel (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep {{BD|19xx|19xx|Name}} is one of the nicest things to have on wiki, has the required info in compact form. Excellent template, I can not understand why anyone would want to delete it. It "complicates" nothing, au contraire. "impedes our ability to order categories as we see fit"? I've seen articles were year of death was given before birth, or the years placed arbitrarily among professions. I expect to see birth/death by default at the very beginning of the cat list, just like in the intro, which starts with Name and Lifespan before anything else. I am among those who often replace Defsort and the two categories with the neat BD, BTW. (edits conflicts, I hate them) -- Matthead  Discuß   23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I can see no problem caused by the use or existence of this template. If an editor dislikes it so strongly, then just don't use it - it's not a requirement to use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless sugar for old hands, confusing for newbs. Hesperian 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Firstly, I think "subst:Lived" is easier. Secondly, even if we keep it, we certainly have to make more specific guidelines. Is replacement of defaultsort+2 cats with lifetime a nice edit? Do you accept that? Because, I usually do the opposite. I replace lifetime with ds to help new editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  One option would be to have a bot substitute this template (maybe only when birth and death years are entered). I would be fine with this, since the primary reason I use this template is for convenience, and as I said, the information is very unlikely to change. Gary King (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - useful and valuable template. I only discovered this a couple of days ago, but am glad I have, as it's much simpler and quicker than adding the categories separately. True, it's not immediately obvious what it does - one way in which {{Lived}} is better - but generally this is a helpful template. Terraxos (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - How many new editors add DEFAULTSORT and cats such as birth year, living etc. to articles anyway. In one template it does the work of several categories. I am not sure how much more difficult it is for newcomers anyway; I found the whole DEFAULTSORT template horribly unintuitive when I was new and lifetime appears cleaner and more intuitive to me. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Excellent template, eminently useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's useful shorthand for common stuff, especially correctly dealing with stuff that is otherwise usually omitted, like the living-people and date missing categories and their intersections. --Delirium (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• The problem is that user:Archanamiya has been on a rampage recently adding this template at the impossible rate of almost one article per second and making many mistakes along the way. Many people have left comments on his talk page explaining to him what he's doing wrong but he doesn't seem to notice them. But that doesn't mean that the template should be deleted. For An Angel (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  The user has stopped. I suspect that this WP:TFD will fail, with no consensus reached. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I like to ensure that the articles I edit have the appropriate DEFAULTSORT and birth/death categories, but I can never remember all the various syntaxes offhand. The Lifetime template simplifies this immensely and I find it very heuristic and intuitive. Leofric1 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I can see the usefulness, but I think it's unnecessary and too complicated for what it does; as another editor said, the cons outweigh the pros. faithless (^speak) 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Categorising articles is an easy thing to do as a new editor and this makes it harder for people to understand as the template gives no indication as to what the numbers or anything are for, or even that it is for categorisation. This is especially true if just BD is used. All it is doing is creating a dependence on a template for something that shouldn't. Categorisation and DEFAULTSORT are easier to learn, and can be applied to ALL articles. This is biography specific and needs to be learnt in addition to the standard method and creates confusion between the two for those who do not know the difference. It is often stated that Wikipedia makes it hard to start editing articles, and this definitely does not help. mattbr 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep.This template is easy to use and very useful. New editors can still use DEFAULTSORT and birth/death categories, if they do not know who "Lifetime" works. Doma-w (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Just for the record. The reason that triggered this discussion is a series of edits like these. Some users are misusing lifetime. Morever, the discussion should give an answer to this question: Which should we consider as "standard form". Can I go and delete defaulsort to add lifetime or the opposite? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment to comment. That is an issue with a user, not an issue with this template. The incorrect application of LIFETIME could just as easily have been done to DEFAULTSORT, as those wonky edits all appear to be sort key mistakes. Ford MF (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  It's not just about one user. It's also an argument for mandatory subst: since most of the articles this is used in were perfectly well categorized to begin with and have had it templatized for no ... whatever reason. gren グレン 09:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If an editor has it together enough to use DEFAULTSORT, they've got it together enough to use LIFETIME. And if they don't, the introduction of new templates will cause them no harm, as they likely aren't using many templates anyway. And if an experienced editor doesn't like it, there's nothing compelling them to use it; they can continue to ignore it without consequence. I quite like it, personally. Seems marginally simpler than, and therefore superior to, {{lived}}, since you don't have to type out b=, d=, &c. Am I missing something? Ford MF (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: This is obviously useful and a step in the right direction. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, useful and intuitive.-gadfium 08:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A nice and useful template.--Jaellee (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mild keep. If it is deleted, all these pages will be devoid of birth/death info. That's the only reason. The creator of the template went on a rampage enforcing his will without discussion, and ignored consensus. I never support that kind of rouge editing. -- Elaich ^talk
• Keep and improve. Ideally, templates that populate categories from input parameters should catch when the populated categories do not exist. Suggests to create two hidden categories: Category:Articles with invalid year of birth parameter in template and Category:Articles with invalid year of death parameter in template, and modify the template code (sorry for the lost line formatting due to the "nowiki" tag):

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:"{{{3|}}}"|""||{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{3}}}}} }} [[Category:{{#switch:"{{uc: {{{1|}}} }}" | "MISSING"|"" = Year of birth missing {{#switch:"{{uc:{{{2|}}}}}"|"LIVING"|""=(living people)}} | "UNKNOWN" = Year of birth unknown | #default = {{{1}}} births {{#ifexist:Category:{{{1}}} births||[[Category:Articles with invalid year of birth parameter in template]]}} }}]] [[Category:{{#switch:"{{uc: {{{2|}}} }}" | "LIVING"|"" = Living people | "MISSING" = Year of death missing | "UNKNOWN" = Year of death unknown | #default = {{{2}}} deaths {{#ifexist:Category:{{{2}}} deaths||[[Category:Articles with invalid year of death parameter in template]]}} }}]]<!--FROM 'subst:BIRTH-DEATH-SORT' VERSION 2.0 (2007.11.25)--> </includeonly>

The modified code has been briefly tested in a sandbox, and seems to work as intended. Oceanh (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

• Comment: If this template is kept, then AWB must be updated as it automatically mangles the categories when this template is used. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's useful and easy to understand. I don't see a large learning curve for newbies and several vandals have figured it out as well. As an aside, I like that it's not in all caps as opposed to DEFAULTSORT. If it's worth anything, at least it's not a pain in the ass to type out. Dismas|^(talk) 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as templatecruft: makes things harder, not easier, for new editors to understand, unnecessary for experienced editors, adds extra complications for data reusers. Its unnecessary use has already screwed up the carefully entered defaultsort info for a significant number of articles. -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. As the above discussion shows, many users find it easier to use this template than to type out all the categories. Also we have a problem with drive-by-editors that see an error in an article and when he tries to update the birth year he does not understand the syntax. I understand that this template does things that {{subst:lived}} doesn't. Is it possible to subst this template so that the categories is shown in the usual manner. If not, is this possible to achieve? That way we all get what we want. Experienced editors can use a shorter template and it will be easier to understand the syntax. Rettetast (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Useful template that saves time and effort in entering defaultsort and year of birth/death categories. Also it helps populate articles with the birth/death categories (one of more of which can easily be missed without it). Jogurney (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Highly useful, easy-to-use template. Getting around the DEFAULTSORT is easy enough if you need it to be done. I see no reason to jettison it for all the good it does. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this template does the job better than birth and death categories, especially in the case of year of birth missing. Don't see the problem with understanding its syntax. Punkmorten (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep An elegant improvement on the cumbersome birth/death category scheme. I don't think this is difficult to pick up at all; sandwiched between non-breaking spaces and dashes, citation templates for sources, infoboxes, persondata, and seas of cleanup tags, this makes life easier for new people. Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this template simplifies an otherwise tedious process of adding a birth and death category and DEFAULTSORT (to take the words out of the mouth of the nominator). This template saves a lot of time and not least hassle when creating biography articles, and is an inevitable tool for biography article creators. If mass changes or vandalism is a problem, instead consider protecting it than nominating it for deletion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as per User:Arsenikk. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, it doesn't have to be used so the argument that it's confusing for newbies is irrelevant (otherwise there would be no wiki templates!!) but it is very useful, labour saving template which combines several functions in one and ensures category order is consistent. Thaf (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think we have to start a discussion in template's talk page based in two questions: a. Should we add in the intructions: "If Category:xxxx births, Category:xxxx deaths exist, lifetime must not be used" ? and b. D you agree with the improvements proposed by Oceanh? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I love this template and use it all the time. And yes, I do remove the three separate lines and put this template in their place (never subst'ed) when I'm editing, as it makes the categories listing much easier to read and understand. If anything, I'd suggest it be made into policy to always use {{Lifetime}}. It tremendously helps categorization of biographies, and by it being required that it go before the other categories, it also helps standardizing where the birth, death, living etc. ones appear in the final rendered list, causing Wikipedia to become more consistent for readers. -- alexgieg (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Overly complex for some users. Too easy to mix up the dates. Alternatives exist. Scanlan (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - or maybe make people subst: it... I think we should make things as simple as they can be, but not simpler. I don't see how this is an advantage to DEFAULTSORT and the birth/death cats: there is no improvement. As per mattbr, it is confusing for newbies in the fact when they are learning wiki syntax, seeing this and DEFAULTSORT mixed up will confuse people, and some won't realise the birth/death cats exist because they aren't explicit in the editing page. If people find it easier to type out, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be subst'd (by a regular run of a bot, say). Severo^TC 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – Seems way too confusing to me. Jared Preston (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, or make it "must-subst", per Severo. Having both forms around is clearly going to unnecessarily complicate matters, and forcing to standardisation on the template is just busy-work, and introducing a completely pointless single-point-of-failure. Alai (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that this may be kept if subst'ing is required. Some users seem to find it useful but most use the DEFAULTSORT and cats on their own and their inclusion on articles should be obvious and clear not hidden within this template. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. After testing out the use of this template, I see that subst'ing it is even worse than leaving the template. The categories and defaultsort should be in plaintext in the edit window not hidden in a template. DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I prefer the DEFAULTSORT it is far less complicated. The option of using it should be continue. Thank you RFD (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete complicated and completely unnecessary. At least do not convert existing articles that properly use defaultsort, and birth/death category - unnecessary waste of time & resources. Renata (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve - it simplifies things. Ian Cairns (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It works & people use it. I prefer for articles to have the raw code, as it helps learning, but people should be able to use this as a shortcut and have a bot replace it with the raw code. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, substituting it makes a lot of sense. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm struggling to see it being confusing to a new editor, or more specifically a new editor that was able and willing to put the brainpower to understand the Category and DEFAULTSORT features. It's one of the more intuitive templates in its naming and parameters.
• Keep As Per above arguments. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Make susbst-only. Yes, experienced Wikipedians may not realise it, but every template makes editing more confusing for newcomers, and newcomers are traditionally treated very gently here. If this template saves a couple keystrokes, substing it makes some sense, but keepingh it in article text forever is tempaltecruft and fails Occam's razor. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see many people here commenting how supposedly confusing this template is to newcomers. How come? I was a newcomer until a few weeks ago, and at the very first instant I saw this template, what I think happened at my second day editing, I understood its purpose. Really, it makes no sense to think that people willing to edit encyclopedia articles, of all things (for anything but vandalism, of course), are that much brain-dead. Don't you guys be so patronizing. If syntactic sugar has a place at all, it's here. Whatever makes editing easier is welcome. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment thats all the more reason to delete then -
      • Comment. All templates are syntactic sugar. No exception. Infoboxes? Can be done with wikisyntax. Let's delete them. Ditto for user boxes, message boxes, sortable lists, multi-column templates etc. So, no, it's not "all the more reason to delete then", unless you can provide the "more reason to not delete" the others. Templates are all about replacing repetitive tasks. Categorizing is a repetitive task. Ergo, categorizing templates are legit. -- alexgieg (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment #2: By the way: wikisyntax itself is nothing more than syntatic sugar for HTML tags. What's the advantage of [[Image:Bla.jpg|Description]] over <div style="float: right;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bla.jpg"><img src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bla.jpg" alt="Description"/></a><br/>Description</div>? None. So, let's do away with it and only keep wikitags that do something to the wiki software itself, such as meta-categorization. After all, there are much more people out there with HTML knowledge than with wikisyntax knowledge. Wikipedia is certainly confusing to them. ;-) -- alexgieg (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or force-subst. - Templates should not be a substitute for wiki syntax. If a user can grok what {{Lifetime}} does, he/she will also be able to use DEFAULTSORT. Note also that certain editors are going around replacing defaultsort+yob/yod with {{lived}}. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  ps: A subst: version apparently exists as {{Lived}}.
• Keep - It encourages the addition of categories indicating what you don't know (Category:Year of birth missing (living people), etc) as well as what you do, which aids in cleanup -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This template greatly simplifies the task of adding and maintaining sorting information, birth year, and death year categories for experienced editors who know to use it. A forced-subst version would be only marginally more annoying to add but would make the data harder to maintain. Additionally, it makes it more obvious when the birth and death information are missing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - the instructions are good and can be found by going to the template page under the edit box as with any template, or it can be learned (as I for one do many things here) by comparison with its use on other pages; it does seem to (inclusively) put several ideas into one (for biography pages; Defaultsort remains when it is relevant for some other pages.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The simplicity is the best. It is already perfectly simple enough to add birth and death categories and default sort, and the template doesn't simplifies the process much; it only adds more (if not much) complication. -- Taku (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong keep The related categories may be needed. Kitty53 (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong keep It simplifies the process. Maybe it needs explanation like lifetime|b=XXXX|d=YYYY|sort=KEY. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Gains very little and just adds more confusion for newbies. Moondyne 13:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Template is easy to use and very useful. Allows for variations and is not mandatory. -- Alexf⁴² 15:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Template is very instrumental in precise understanding of historical dates. Those who are busy with deletion instead of going forward and create, are only preventing the development of Wikipedia. -- Shoteh (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep With guidelines indicating that use of this template is not mandatory. People who find it easier to do longhand can and should; those who do not will have the shortcut. And those who insist on abusing this Template because of anal-retentiveness or editcountitis should be bitch-slapped by admins the same as those who abuse anything else. As for confusing the n00bs, they are confused regardless; we should no more dumb down all our processes to fit their limited abilities than we should limit our content to that which is fit for children. Advanced templates (such as the entire citation series) exist to assist advanced editors, whose responsibilities broadly include cleaning up after those with less experience. Thus, this does not, and should not, replace the existing functionality, but rather simplify the process of implementing it for those who know how to do so. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Intuitive, elegant, useful, instantly understandable. --Lockley (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is very useful and keeps the categories organized. Chantessy (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral, but force subst: of this template and stop users from adding this when all of these parameters are already present. gren グレン 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I can't help feeling partially responsible for bringing this to light as I've added this template to a couple of hundred pages in the last few days. To the contrary of the claim that it complicates things, I think it simplifies them. It turns 3 lines into one, thus reducing clutter on a page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You're clearly not mainly responsible in "volume" terms, but edits that "add" the template without actually adding anything to the article are indeed precisely the problem here. You prefer the version that "decreases the complexity" as measured in number of lines of wiki syntax. Others prefer the version that "decreases the complexity" by not having several distinct flavours of markup in use for exactly the same effect. Thus the potential for an infinite loop of self-definedly "good" edits, that go absolutely nowhere. If this template is kept, it forces us to decide on a "preferred" form, otherwise this goes on indefinitely. Alai (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes... I've looked at some of the history now and I see that the person responsible was soembody who did not use the sort key correctly. Instead of simply coreecting the user, other wikipedians put an athorative "please stop without concensus" message on his discussion page and reverted all his changes instead of simply fixing his errant sort keys. Ironically, they were largely acting without concesus as this template has actually already survived a deletion review once. It occurs to me that a user could make the same exact mistake with the DEFAULTSORT template that was made with the lifetime template.... therefore... this concern is unwarranted as we already have this problem with DEFAULTSORT and we deal with it on a daily basis.
    • As for the "simplicity is in the eye of the beholder" issue. We're just arguing syntax. The old dogs who are used to using DEFAULTSORT don;t want tolearn the new tricks. However, this is wikipedia, chnage is possible... nothing should be set in stone. The actual differences between the Lifetime template and it;s predecessors are minimal. Lifetime just makes things simpler.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • "Old dogs"? I hate to think what that makes me, since I'm still thinking in terms of DS being a new-fangled feature... We're indeed arguing syntax, except that I've provided an argument, and you've provided an assertion. There's nothing fundamentally better or worse about one or the other. But since my pointing out the possible different perceptions is being construed as shamelessly wishy-washy relativism, let me more explicit: if we have {{lifetime}}, we still have to have DS as well. Hence, some articles have become shorter, which might look like "simplicity" to people who only ever look at bios, and those bios with that template already in place, but the descriptive complexity of the system as a whole has quite patently gone up. Furthermore, if you're arguing for the systematic replacement of DS on bios with lifetime, and that doing so needn't wait on explicit consensus to do so, then you're pretty much guaranteeing another round of the needless drama that got us here in the first place. That someone could make the same mistake witn DS is neither here nor there: they're not making these mistakes at present, they're not making (what are quite clearly) automated buggy conversions that are susceptible to producing same, and indeed there's no need or likelihood to make them.
      • I'm a little boggled that you could imagine that somehow the fault's not with Archanamiya, but with those that cleaned up after the mess he made. Running an unapproved bot would be a Bad Thing. That it's buggy would be another Bad Thing. That it was making edits that would be at best a toss-up as to whether they were even marginally "good edits", if made on a small scale by a human editors, on a preposterously large scale, is, if not inherently bad, pushing the marginal way past any likely endurance on the part of the community. Given all this, it's hardly reasonable to expect that people pick through these edits, and carefully preserve those that were merely contentious and useless, and revert or fix only those that were that were out and out instances of the bug. Alai (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - care should be taken with using sort key magic words inside templates. The way DEFAULTSORT works, it is the last appearance of DEFAULTSORT on a page that is used as the default sort key. For this reason alone, all uses of DEFAULTSORT should be plaintext and at (or near) the bottom of the wiki-text editing window, otherwise it can be a real pain to try and find the template that is causing a certain sorting behaviour. It is also surprisingly easy for uses of other sort key magic words (such as PAGENAME) to unwittingly over-ride the DEFAULTSORT. Most of these problems only appear when you use these magic words on talk page templates (eg. the many WikiProject banners start to conflict with different sort keys), but unless things are kept simple, there is a danger of this happening with articles as well. In addition, the entire sort key additions and data-aggregation for biographical articles needs to be designed from the top-down, not the bottom up. Wikipedia:Persondata and the discussions at Template talk:WPBiography. In particular, read this and this. I would like to quote what User:Stemonitis said there: "DEFAULTSORT should be visible to any editor without trawling through convoluted template code. Templates may over-ride the default sort key for their own categories (via a listas parameter for instance), but should not use DEFAULTSORT for that. DEFAULTSORT must only be called once on any given page, and the best way to ensure that is to have no templates calling it. Ever." It may be necessary to (again) trawl through the template namespace and make sure that DEFAULTSORT is not being used inside templates. DEFAULTSORT needs to be kept visible. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this is just the concensusof the moment. If concensus changed toward using the lifetime template on biographical pages then it would beunderstood by wikipedians in general that Defaultsort is no longer needed. The wikipedia community should not be afraid to adopt Bold guideline changes.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it would not, since quite clearly defaultsort is used on more than just bios, so if this exists it's always going to be an additional layer of syntax, not a replacement. Let's indeed try to "be in the moment", since speculating about possible future, different consensus gets us nowhere. I'm not sure how "be bold" helps us here, other than in the most hand-waving of all possible senses. Alai (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT is not just used in biographical articles, though that is its primary use. DEFAULTSORT is what it says it is - a general sort key to be used by default to avoid repeating sort keys many times over different categories. Getting back to the biographical articles, in my view, all biographical articles should have DEFAULTSORT even those that seem not to need it, as otherwise there is no way to distinguish between those articles that supposedly don't need DEFAULTSORT and those where no-one has checked yet whether it is needed. Leaving the DEFAULTSORT parameter of this template blank might be acceptable, as at least this indicates someone has thought about whether defaultsort is needed, but maybe not. Also, no-one has yet addressed my concern that it is bad practice to hide sort keys inside a template. Sort keys should be visible and not searched for inside a template. Here is a simple question: can anyone detect all the uses of DEFAULTSORT in Wikipedia at the moment? Can anyone provide a list of all the templates using DEFAULTSORT, and can they guarantee that no two templates using DEFAULTSORT will be used on the same page? If a developer could fix things so that an error message appeared if more than one DEFAULTSORT appeared on a page, then fine, but until that happens, DEFAULTSORT needs to be used once only, and transparently and visibly at the bottom of the page it applies to, and not in a template. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Subst and delete - per my above comments. I'm also notifying User:Stemonitis and User:SMcCandlish, as their participation in the earlier discussion I pointed out means they should (theoretically) be interested in this one. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or force-subst -- needlessly complicated. Replacing exsisting cats with this is even more useless. Allowing it to stay as a forced subst: would actually be the best of both worlds as it wouldn't hide what it's doing, and would still allow those who find this convinient to keep using it --T-rex 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is a simple and elegant template that saves having to put in separate categories for birth and death, together with the default sort template. DEFAULTSORT is needed most often in biographic articles, and Lifetime conveniently eliminate the need for it. Once regular editors of biographies have found how to use it there should be no problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• A subst template like this that serves no convenient purpose other than to confuse should be deleted. I don't see why the categories shouldn't be added manually, since it's actually easier to do so than to establish this template to do it for us. Valtoras (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a subst template; and I now add this a dozen times a day, saving a noticeable amount of time. Apart from that, I agree ... Charles Matthews (talk)

Would you be happy using it as a subst. template? As an aside, I see on Stephan Szántó, that you put the sort key as "Szántó, Stephan", when it should be "Szanto, Stephan". See Wikipedia:Categorisation#Other specifics:

"Letters with accents or diacritics should generally be avoided in sort keys, because they are sorted incorrectly by the Mediawiki software. For example, the software sorts "á" after "z", which is not correct in any language. For this reason, articles with accented characters in the title will almost certainly require an explicit sort key instead of relying on the default "sort by article title" behavior. For example, the article about the Hungarian town of Ács uses Acs as its sort key. Remember that sort keys are not displayed, so the article title will still show up with the correct spelling in the category page."

And Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category:

"Punctuation, such as apostrophes and colons (but not hyphens) should be removed, and accented letters and ligatures should be replaced by their unaccented or separated counterparts. The first letter of each word should be in upper case, and all subsequent letters should be in lower case, regardless of the correct spelling of the name. Thus, Lena D'Água sorts as. For a surname which begins with Mc or Mac, the category sort key should always be typed as Mac with the remainder of the name in lowercase — for example, Macdonald, Maccluskey or Macmorris — regardless of how the surname is actually spelled. Remember that the sort key only affects where an article is listed in alphabetical order — it does not alter the appearance of the title. Without these last alterations, all punctuation marks and internal capital letters would be sorted before A, and all accented characters and ligatures would sort after Z."

Many people fail to do this despite it being marked clearly in the guidelines, and I forget as well sometimes, so forgive me for repeating it at length here, especially as when, as here, it is the third character in that is accented, as that means in practice there is little need to remove the diacritics. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is terrible! It's a serious, serious, serious bug in MediaWiki! For God's sake, how in the nine circles of hell can a software, supposedly Unicode and UTF-8 compliant (and if it isn't it should be), in the middle of year 2008, still sort characters by their internal binary representations rather by their semantic meaning? This isn't the DOS era! Policy or not, I won't follow this guideline. MediaWiki must be brought up to the way people use the alphabet, not the other way around.

If this behavior of mine for some reason isn't "acceptable", then someone please write a bot to go around correcting these entries, because the above instructions are perfectly "automatizable". If MediaWiki doesn't do internally what it should, nor do most people follow them, let a piece of software take care of it, as Unicode semantic tables are easy to come by. It's just not an editor's problem that the internal sorting feature was implemented in such a brain-dead way. alexgieg (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Their "semantic meaning"? That being what? Unicode support is exactly the problem: it defines one order (the one you consider to be "buggy"), different languages define the correct order for their own purposes, in some instances inconsistently with Unicode, and/or with each other. And introduce sorting rules for digraphs, etc. See the article collating sequence for the grubby details. For automatic handling of this, you'd need a language-based switch on each article, to be able to sort two [X]ish language articles according to the rules of [X]ish -- then you'd still be no further forward to as to how to sort an article in [X]ish with one in [Y]ian. Unless you used the Unicode ordering as a fallback, say. Alai (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. What Alai said. I did once ask for a bot to help fix this so people didn't have to bother, but not much happened. See here. I think the problem might have been: I'm going to start on the dictionary of special characters and what their replacements are". But this is getting off-topic. The point is that sort keys need to be visible, not hidden away in templates. Could someone explain to me how putting sort keys inside a template makes them more visible? Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

@Alai, what's requested from editors is that they collapse characters such as "áàãâä" into the ASCII equivalent "a". This is much simpler than defining in which sequence the five characters (plus "a" itself) should go, and is fairly generic. Sure, there will be some languages in which it gets more complicated than that, but then, Wikipedia should bother only editors writing articles with titles in those languages to hand-craft the sort key. It's pretty out of hand to require this from every non-English editor when only a handful of them should actually have to mind these matters.

@Carchoth, when one writes {{Lifetime|year|year|sortkey}} in a page, the sortkey isn't hidden, it's pretty visible in the page itself. It just isn't preceded by {{DEFAULTSORT:, it's preceded by {{Lifetime|year|year|. -- alexgieg (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please stop nonconstructive edits by replacing the three lines with lifetime. At least until we reach a consensus. Really please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

@alexgieg, there is nothing in the wiki-syntax indicating that the parameter "sortkey" is a sort key. Where DEFAULTSORT appears, people can instantly see that this is a sortkey. When a piped sort key is there, people who know what a piped sort key is can see that it is the sort key. Someone spotting an incorrect sort and going to an article might not know that the sort key is in this template. Or any other template. DEFAULTSORT is used in more than just biographical articles. Have a look at this search if you don't believe me, and then assure me that of those templates that are (a) used in mainspace (many are used on talk pages) and (b) that use DEFAULTSORT, none of them clash. This is what I am talking about when I'm saying people need to keep sortkeys visible - not just what the sortkey is, but that there is a sortkey there at all. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment - quoting from the template documentation: "The template's name and its aliases are in all-caps and feature the suffix -SORT so as to clue in editors that it embeds and replaces DEFAULTSORT. (The original alias "BD" was renamed and is unlisted for the same reason.)" - unfortunately, it was renamed without someone reading the manual. We also see

  "the embedded magic word DEFAULTSORT also applies to all categories listed below the template"

  It would be better to quote from the manual at Help:Category#Default sort key:

  "In the case of multiple default sort key tags, the last one on a page applies for all categories, regardless of the position of the category tags. This also means that a DEFAULTSORT tag in a template, intended for category tags in that template, for categorization of pages calling the template, is not effective if another DEFAULTSORT tag occurs later on these pages, even if it is also "hidden", in another template."

  This is why I keep saying DEFAULTSORT shouldn't be used inside templates. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Much further extra-additional comment :-) - Replying to this and to your previous reply to me: do you notice that this argument of yours would also call for the elimination of |listas= parameter from WP's talk page banners? After all, talk page categories are categories much like any other and, and if we want a DEFAULTSORT for them, it should be explicited. -- alexgieg (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Listas was a cludgy workaround to enable tracking the use of DEFAULTSORT. I'm aware that Template:DEFAULTSORT and this template (and the similar ones) are a way to track defaultsort, but I think I recently spotted a thing where the developers showed that they can clearly generate a list of all the uses of a magic word. If they could do that for DEFAULTSORT, then I would be the first to say that listas can go. Until then, the sequence is still: (1) Use a bot to match up DEFAULTSORT and listas on article and talk pages; (2) Use Category:Biography articles without listas parameter to fill in the rest; repeat cycle until all biography articles have correct DEFAULTSORT. Look at User:Polbot/ideas/defaultsort and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3 and User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run for an old and stalled attempt to approach this systematically. This should be done now, while the number of bios is still only about half a million. It will get worse later on. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch - Lol, I'm beginning to think I'd accept a bot that went around replacing:

{{Lifetime|year|year|sortkey}}

with

{{DEFAULTSORT:sortkey}}

{{Lifetime|year|year}}

as most of the criticisms seem to be targeted towards the sortkey. This would keep us "lifetime typers" happy for the simplicity, you DEFAULTSORT fans for getting it split away from the template, and the option open for lifetime (without sortkey bot-splited from it) maybe officialized as the preferred way to semi-automatically take care of birth and death categories in biographies (what would require a whole new discussion, of course). -- alexgieg (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly support separating out the DEFAULTSORT stuff and keeping it separate. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I also like this idea. My support for the template is more about the date handling than having the DEFAULTSORT bundled in. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also be fine with separating out DEFAULTSORT. Other than its handling of missing birth/death years, it is just a nice short cut when cleaning up new bio articles. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm disambiguating [[conductor]] today. I was alerted to this discussion, because several articles on musicians have {{BD}} which redicrects to {{Lifetime}}. The template is serving its purpose by putting people into birth and death year categories. Is someone proposing to run a bot to fix all these articles before removing the template? Even then, what about editors who know how to use this template, who would otherwise not put people in the appropriate categories. I fail to see any purpose served by removing a useful template.  Randall Bart   Talk  17:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All uses of the template would be substituted before any deletion - no information would be lost. This is mostly an argument over when it is appropriate to use templates. In my case whether it is appropriate to use powerful default sort keys inside a template (and in some cases whether sort keys are ever useful inside templates), and in other people's cases whether template use sets up a barrier for editing to new editors. I think the subst'ing for BD and the separating out of DEFAULTSORT, addresses most concerns. TfD is being used mainly as a way to attract attention to the debate (I think). I presume, from the BD name, that it was originally designed without DEFAULTSORT? Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BD is just another attempt to simplify the BIRTH-DEATH-SORT. In the beginning was BD-SORT and BD followed. I like the idea of a lifetime without defaultsort if we still give clear instructions that replacing cats with lifetime should be avoided. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, let's suppose we go about keeping the template, with the ability of sortkeying, but with the implicit knowledge that a bot will be running through articles and splitting out the sort-key from the template (but keeping the template itself). Well, this opens a nice possibility: we could change the template so that if a sortkey is present, the article is added to a hidden category, say, "Category:Lifetime articles with sortkey parameter". This way the bot would know at first sight where to look, and these splits would happen almost instantly. What do you think? -- alexgieg (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A must-subst template that is backwards compatible with {{lived}} and {{Lifetime}} is available at User:JackSchmidt/Lived. It is currently "defanged" so that it just links the categories and mentions DEFAULTSORT in plain text, but it is easy to "refang" it. I was thinking of putting a fanged version at {{Sbds}} for subst-birth-death-sort. It allows the parameters to be named (b,d,s or b,d,key), it handles living persons, unknown/missing birth/death years, and even allows b=skip or d=skip to update only one of the categories. Ideally it would gracefully handle not being subst'd, but that is still a work in progress. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems useful. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WPCanada Navigation

[edit] Template:The GO-PCHS-NJROTC Antivandal Barnstar

Template:The GO-PCHS-NJROTC Antivandal Barnstar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Apparently a school specific barnstar. Should be userfied. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 09:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy I don't think it's school-specific, but rather user-specific (and the user is, in turn, named after a school). I really have no clue what its purpose is, though (I was awarded one, but I have no idea what it was for). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment From his userpage, it's Port Charlotte High School's Naval Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I realize the name, but in its usage (see User talk:EVula#Thank you...), it has nothing to do with the school. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It ain't school specific, that's my username here (GO-PCHS-NJROTC). It's creation was inspired by the RickK Antivandal Barnstar, and the idea was the fact that at that time I had no idea who RickK was, and I assumed that was the creator of the award. I thought I'd rather give my own barnstar with my own username than someone else's, and that's where this award comes into play. Deletion? I don't think it's a good idea. Although I'd rather see it left as is, I think that it'd be better to redirect it to the RickK version than to delete it since deleting this kind of item may screw up some people's user and user talk pages, that is if consensus points to delete (and I'm hoping it doesn't). Did that settle any misunderstandings? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Userfication will suffice. No need to delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy as a personal award used by its creator (see his comment above) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what is userfication? I was just wondering. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The page will be moved from the template namespace into a subpage of your userspace. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

e.g., User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC/The GO-PCHS-NJROTC Antivandal Barnstar. Or perhaps marginally more concisely, just User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC/Antivandal Barnstar. Alai (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy per EVula --GreenJoe 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Playstations

Template:Playstations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not used. Not needed. The project says to use {{playstationp|Scaled=yes}}. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While it's not used, isn't it significantly different from {{playstationp}}? {{Playstations}} seems to imply that the article is currently being edited, similar to {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}}. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • {{playstationp}} says the same thing: "...that they are working on it to..." The wording could always be changed if that is the only problem. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Go ahead and delete it. The project doesn't use it anymore.--Playstationdude (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No longer used by the project + nothing that justifies marking it as historical. At most, subst it on the project page to show old banners --Enric Naval (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Foreignchar

Template:Foreignchar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Even though it's pretty logical to have an canonicalized (transliterated) redirect to an title, there is no reason to point that out at all on the article in question (unless there direct reason to point it out, i.e. if an entity has official both types used).. _→AzaToth 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Too widely used. More discussion needed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking at previous discussions on this subject, it is suprising that no one (so far) responded to this nomination. However, I think it is time to delete this template. As someone said in a previous discussion: The use of {{foreignchar}} in a hatnote gives unwarranted prominence to a minor point. I believe that in most cases a comment on the use of "foreign" characters is not required. And in articles for which the transliteration of the name is not obvious, common transliterations could be listed in the article lead (as in the article on Rudolf Höß). --Kildor (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The template {{foreignchars}} should be considered for deletion as well. --Kildor (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Case in point: Rügen. It current features this hatnote at the top, though it could just as easily put "(sometimes spelled Ruegen)" in the intro sentence. That would be a less intrusive, and far less wordy, way of displaying the same information. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It is helpful when foreign characters are explained in standard form to those who are not familiar with them. See Voßstraße and Talk:Vossstrasse/Archive 1 to get an idea how ugly discussions can get. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- very simple, extremely useful template that allows important but often forgotten categories to be easily added. If you would rather reorder the categories, add them manually and use defaultsort. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ... what categories? Alai (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – Although a good concept, I think there are other ways of finding a solution to this problem. I, personally, think it makes the page ugly and don't find it helpful in the slightest. A simple redirect would suffice if you were looking/searching for the article, and I think most people know to remove the diacritic if they find it "undesirable". Jared Preston (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - alternate spellings can be added to the lead section, and redirects can be used to point other pages to the most commonly used spelling. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:50, May 25, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 21

[edit] Template:Sumerian rulers, Template:Notable Sumerians

Template:Sumerian rulers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Notable Sumerians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Created by banned user sockpuppets; also duplicate info on Template Notable Rulers of Sumer, which said banned user had repeatedly refused to discuss before changing Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Deletion notice wasn't added to the templates themselves. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was repeatedly added to both, but you must have been looking at them after the sock's turn in the edit war. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The template is well laid out and provides valuable information. There appears to be a history of personal antagonism here, which should not influence the retention of a practical research tool.210.246.8.125 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm wondering if I should withdraw my nom for the first one, reluctantly... I concede her work on it is impressive, and could be potentially useful, mainly for listing minor kings still lacking articles as convenient redlinks -- but, would it still be proper to keep it, even though the creator has been banned by the community for crossing the policy lines a few times too many? As for the second template, it is essentially Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer, only done her way (see the history of that template; there was much consternation 3-4 months ago over her unbending insistence that the navbox be remade into an infobox) and the template seems just a way to game the outcome of that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for the Sumerian rulers template. I didn't know there was a specific site for deleting templates (rather than just articles) until I noticed the Template:Lifetime was being proposed for deletion. Anyway, the Sumerian rulers template seems reasonable. It is small and compact...not one of those huge ugly templates that totally dominates an article. It would be useful for listing some of the less well known Sumerian rulers as you note. As for Template:Notable Sumerians, I have no opinion here. It would be useful if the-predynastic Sumerian kings are mentioned in a site specific template just for them or if the Sumerian rulers template could apply to them. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Little Rock neighborhoods

Template:Little Rock neighborhoods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Another template already exists. See Template:Little Rock, Arkansas neighborhoods. This template was made much later than Template:Little Rock, Arkansas neighborhoods and is the reason why I nominated it for deletion. Reorion (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/delete completely redundant to {{Little Rock, Arkansas neighborhoods}}. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep/Comment - The template suggested for deletion is the one that is actually being used. I would gladly support deleting the old template instead. Broooooooce (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment/Merge forgot that I can merge an article. An admin can close this deletion as I'll merge it.
• Delete/Comment - I've corrected the links in all of the existing neighborhood articles to the actual template we are using now, the template for deletion may be removed entirely without harming any existing articles. Broooooooce (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Male Golf Tour Leaders

Template:Male Golf Tour Leaders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template requires weekly updates but content has not been updated since February. As the community has not seen the need to keep the information in this template current then this template can be deleted — Catchpole (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Seems useless if it's out of date, but with some updating it could be worthy of keeping. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Rather unfeasible to require weekly updates, and hasn't been updated since February. Becomes next to useless when out of date. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:23, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete A nifty idea, but one that completely breaks down when it isn't updated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AmEng notice

Template:AmEng notice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:BrEng notice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unlike {{American-English}} and {{British-English}}, which are designed for use on article talk pages, these two self-referential templates are designed for use on articles themselves. While article message boxes are an exception to the rule that there should be no disclaimers in articles, the exception applies only to message boxes that are intended to be temporary (that is, the message boxes highlight a particular issue that needs to be addressed; when the issue is addressed, the box should be removed). The disclaimer contained in these templates, however, is not a temporary one. On the whole, this type of notice will only add to the template/notice clutter that exists on so many articles and is likely to distract readers from the content of articles by focusing their attention on the spelling of words. A talk page notice (or a hidden notice visible only in the edit window) for editors is one thing, but I don't think a prominently-displayed notice for readers is a good idea. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely unnecessary. Mr.Z-man 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and because the purpose of the notices is better served by {{American-English}} and {{British-English}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The nom and Skeezix1000 pretty much said it all. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly useless. —Angr 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this type of self-referential template is not appropriate for articlespace. Maralia (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. Very clearly breaks WP:NDA. Roguegeek (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unneeded. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, not a disclaimer as described in WP:NDA. Dosn't disclaim anything. It explains why the articles are written as they are. The Bicycle and Motorcycle articles, for which they were developed, receive a steady flow of needless edits due to the versions of English in which they are written. These templates attempt to prevent at least the well-meaning ones. Templates on the talk page only work for editors savvy enough to check the talk page first. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The disclaimer is one that we don't need on the actual articles. To address the examples above, popping these templates on it won't prevent people from editing when they "know" that they're "right". EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Superfluous and needless template proliferation. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – as per above. Jared Preston (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] May 20

[edit] Template:Cite cd notes

Template:Cite cd notes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This seems redundant with Template:Cite album-notes. If I'm missing something, let me know. —Chowbok ☠ 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There are only 35 articles that use {{Cite cd notes}}, and {{Cite album-notes}} has lots. All that {{Cite album-notes}} is missing is an author= parameter for those occasions when the author is identified. RossPatterson (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect: use a key template for the same fuctionality. Update/revise {{cite album-notes}} to be useful with author parameter. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Most albums are CDs. Martarius (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The creator of Template:Cite cd notes (Grover cleveland) requested and received changes to Template:Cite album-notes to make it possible to delete Template:Cite cd notes, back in June 2007. "author=" wasn't requested, but first= and last= were, and they were provided. RossPatterson (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Template:Cd booklet is a redirect to Template:Cite cd notes with no articles using it, and should probably live or die with Template:Cite cd notes. RossPatterson (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Merge-school

Template:Merge-school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnecessarily redundant to the many existing {{merge}} and {{mergeto}} templates. This is a huge template compared to the existing, and doesn't seem to add anything that can't be done more specifically with more precise tags, like notability, and the smaller merge templates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP This template is in use by over 500 schools. Yes, it could be globally subst'd but it is useful in its own right: It also has the advantage over normal merge templates in that it doesn't require the proposer to take the time to identify "the appropriate locality," leaving the definition of "appropriate" up to those who discuss the issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per reason given by davidwr.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as stated above. Template is useful for the intended purpose. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very usefull. Burningclean _[speak] 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Usefull template, widely used. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above; in addition, I think it adds value to the existing merge templates, as it flags it for attention of members of Wikiproject Schools -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate, also pushes a mergist pov, a cabalistic one we don't need. Wizardman 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Inquiry: What exactly is it a duplicate of? It's distinctly different from the templates in WP:MERGE to be useful. The key thing about this template is that the proposer doesn't have to specify in advance the target of the merge. This can be quite handy if he doesn't know the way the locals group schools - e.g. by city, by independent school district, by county, or whatever.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why propose a merge if you don't even know where to merge it to? If someone doesn't know what the target would be from the article, which would seem like it should be a very rare thing, then they should start a discussion first to figure out where it going. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To bring attention to the article. If I see a stub for "Jean Paul Elementary School, Paris France" and, not being from France, I have no idea what the appropriate merge target is, I can do one of several things:

Nothing, implying consent to the status quo, which would be false if I wanted the article merged.

Research the French school system and put up a specific merge tag. That takes time.

Talk about it on the talk page, which would go nowhere for a low-traffic page.

Use a non-specific merge template like the school merge template, in hopes that someone from France would see the article and either make it more specific or mention a good target on the talk page.

PROD the article for deletion, but maybe I don't want the article histoyr deleted.

Nominate the article for AfD and see if a consensus to "merge to ___" arises. But maybe I don't want the article history deleted.

If you don't know enough about French schools, you don't have the time or inclination to learn, you want the article to not exist as a stand-alone article, and you don't want the article history deleted, a non-specific merge template such as this is the best option. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep many school articles need merging into school districts and similar. However, it's not always clear where it should be merged (the school district, the school list on the city article, the parent college?), so this template is a useful fork of other merge templates. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:GFDL-presumed-ast

Template:GFDL-presumed-ast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unneeded license template.. Kelly ^hi! 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that it's unneeded. I see that, before anyone informed me, it was removed from the various images on which I had placed it and those were all marked for deletion. Could someone please properly explain what is going on here? How is it "unneeded" if its removal is causing the deletion of multiple images? And shouldn't someone have asked me what this was about (if it was at all unclear) before first removing this from everywhere I used it? - Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It was only used on one image (at least when I checked) and that image is also on the Wikimedia Commons. Kelly ^hi! 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I gather that the intent is not to lose numerous images, but to use Commons images. If so, that's fine. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ Sorry for all of the relists. Just lots of GFDL stuff. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:GFDL-presumed-ca

Template:GFDL-presumed-ca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unneeded license template - all images using it have been obsoleted by Commons images with better licenses.. Kelly ^hi! 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:LoveBlossoms

Template:LoveBlossoms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template linking two shows for a possible non notable television show. Half of the template, including the main article, is a red link. — Undeath (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete I can't find anything on Google that shows the series, so I am almost certain it's non-notable. Agreed that a template is useless if most of the links are red linked. It might become notable in time, though. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete template is unnecessary and does not add any value to the two articles (one of which now redirects back to the other). If notable, seems like it should all be in one article anyway, and considering the first series hasn't even aired yet, it seems a bit crystally to go around making a template for its supposed sequels.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:GFDL-1.2

Template:GFDL-1.2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

License template obsoleted by {{GFDL}}. The three images that use it have all been moved to Commons and will be deleted here shortly. — Kelly ^hi! 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep - {{GFDL-1.2}} is not the same as {{GFDL}}: GFDL allows any future version of the licence to be applied to the media, whereas GFDL-1.2 clearly specifies Version 1.2 and no other versions. Media uploaded with GFDL-1.2 should not be changed to GFDL without consent of the copyright holder. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 06:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I understand your point perfectly but I think you missed mine. The license is not used here at the en Wikipedia, and I'm not sure why we want to keep it around when users making new uploads should be using {{GFDL}} instead. Kelly ^hi! 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to force uploaders to use {{GFDL}} - {{GFDL-1.2}} is a perfectly valid licence. I use it myself on Commons, and until I transferred the last of my images, only a couple of weeks ago, I used it here. I may still use it if there are any of my images which for whatever reason are not suitable for Commons. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This TfD has been listed at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 14:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As long as GFDL-1.2 and no future versions is considered to be an acceptable license, there is no reason to delete this. Dragons flight (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The reason {{GFDL-1.2}} is hardly used is because last month all of its image uses were move to {{GFDL-1.2-en}} which includes the historical "Subject to disclaimers". However we should want people using GFDL-1.2 rather than GFDL-1.2-en moving forward. Dragons flight (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per others. The FSF encourages authors to license their G*L works with the "future versions" clause, but it is strictly optional as the clause isn't part of the license itself. If it is formally decided that GFDL images do not belong here and must be uploaded to commons, then we can think about nuking both templates, but deleting just one doesn't make sense to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sectstub

Template:Sectstub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is bound to be a controversiol one for two reasons: 1) it looks like a stub template, and therefore might be better served at SfD; 2) it's a high-use, protected template. But there are good reasons for nominating it, and for doing so here.

Firstly, this isn't a stub template - indeed, its name has caused problems for WP:WSS for some time with people mistakenly treating it as if it were a stub template, and with people proposing or going ahead with splits of it by subject and then expecting WP:WSS to clean up any mess (even though it's not covered by our project). For that reason alone, a change of name would be nice, though that's hardly justification in itself for a change. It is however justification for bringing it here not to SfD.

The second, more important point is that it serves exactly the same purpose as {{Expand-section}}, and as such is redundant. I would like to propose redirecting this to {{Expand-section}} to reduce redundancy, but keeping the current name as a redirect since it is clearly widely used. With a less high-use template, I'd feel happy enough to propose this via the template's talk page and do it myself if there was agreement to the move, but given the usage issues with this one, I feel a full TfD is preferable. — Grutness...wha? 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per nomination. It is confusing to have these two templates—the distinctive visual appearance of each one would seem to imply some fundamental difference in how the pages that use them are handled, but that is not the case. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom, particularly since it's misleading to have a stub section in a non-stub article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion of this right now, but I could have sworn we had a big to-do about this in the past. If I'm thinking about the right template, does anyone have any links to the past discussions? -- Ned Scott 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; there is a gradation of priority here: {{sectstub}} is for sections that are empty or nearly empty; {{expand-section}} is for sections that need information to be added. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's completely inconsistent with the WPesque jargon use of "stub" otherwise, so is hardly a good reason for keeping a template with this particular name. If such a distinction is desirable, it should be made much more explicit, and under a different name, please. Alai (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{expand}} {{expand-section}}. The big to-do Ned Scott is thinking of is probably the one for Template:Expand, although there have been deletion discussions for several variants of this basic content, resulting in a lot of redirects to {{sectstub}} [7] and {{expand}} [8]. We only need exactly one wording for this basic concept, and it might as well be one that doesn't evoke confusion with article stubs. For that matter, some of the current redirects are probably marginal as well, though that's outside the scope of this discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect Per nom. Almost completely redundant to {{Expand-section}}. Agreed that it would have to be redirected, as it is used fairly often. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom - we don't need two templates for this purpose, and the nominator gives good reasons why the other one is preferable. Terraxos (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom - I agree that we don't need two templates for this purpose, and Expandsect is more intuitive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect – as per nom. Jared Preston (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 19

[edit] Template:Current sport-related

[edit] Template:Wales Under-20 Squad - 2008 IRB Junior World Championships

[edit] Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ja

Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This nomination also includes Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ko, Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/pt, and Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto/ru.

These templates are not in English. Instead of us maintaining translations of every license tag, just transfer any images of an international nature to the Commons where translation is common and encouraged. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact I copied this template FROM commons. If the template belongs there, then we should not need a local copy. I'll double-check that the images which use this tag get copied to commons - is there an easy way to get a list of all of those? Nimur (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[9] —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We don't need foreign language versions of license templates on the English Wikipedia; these belong on Commons, not here. Terraxos (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Inuse

[edit] Template:Current tennis tournament

[edit] May 18

[edit] Template:Celia

Template:Celia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnecessary template for series of books with few created articles. Almost entirely red links and suspect almost entire listed links would be unable to pass notability requirements. Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And why should they not pass notability requirements? Is there a policy against foreign classics now, too? My. How Wikipedia has changed in two months. There are plenty of red links now, due to the fact that I can't get a hold of all the books, because they're expensive, but articles were to be made until Wikipedia policies banned non-English-language foreign classics. Shame. T.W. (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The template is completely unnecessary, particularly when its almost all redlinks. There are only 3 actual articles for Celia, so adding this huge, red-linked filled template does not enhance them at all. The discussion of the two articles at AfD is another issue. Collectonian (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If the other articles are created, this template will be useful and is in line with other navigational boxes. I will (of course) change my opinion if the AfD for these articles closes as delete. --Kildor (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (though possibly trim down). It makes sense to link together the existing articles in this series; I'm ambivalent about including the redlinked ones, but as the AFD discussions have found that these books pass notability requirements, there's no reason they couldn't be written in future. Either way, this is a useful template. Terraxos (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hollyoaks character

Template:Hollyoaks character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template provides no extra features over and above those already provided by {{Infobox character}}. I'd like to suggest that this template is either deleted or made to redirect to {{Infobox character}}. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• {{Infobox soap character}} is more appropriate for these characters. I already started converting some parameters to make things easier. I am replacing "mother" and "father" options with "parents". I would like help to change "brothers" and "sisters" with "siblings" and "sons" and "daughters" with "children". Let's first make the options compatible and then check if we can just replace it with Infobox soap character. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll see what I can do :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Finished with replacements. They were many duplicates. Now, it's obvious that the template can be replaced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to just redirect the Hollyoaks template to Soap character? Would that work? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just replaced most of the parameters with the corresponded ones in the infobox soap character. I still can't fix "years", "spin-offs" and "books". Unless we believe this are not necessary to exist. After replacements we can just replace "Hollyoaks character" with "Infobox soap character". -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(out) Great work Magioladitis. "years" is effectively a merged form of "first" and "last". I don't think "spin-offs" and "books" are particularly necessary - very few current characters have any "hang over" into spinoffs or books. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to admin. Please don't delete template until it's orphan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Template is orphan since now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Orphaned and redundant to the more general infoboxes linked above. Terraxos (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:British politics

[edit] Template:Bre Banca Lannutti Cuneo

[edit] Template:Bhakti TV - LIVE

[edit] Template:BW21

Template:BW21 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template consists of an image hyperlinked to a User talk page. Such templates cannot be used in signatures per WP:SIG, and it has no use elsewhere. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 09:29, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete Per Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as User:Name/sig, for example) are forbidden. in WP:SIG. There are few if any pages which link to it, so I have no cencerns about messing up talk pages or such. Although, I can't be certain that there is in fact no other use for it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Violation of WP:SIG and an improper use of template-space. Mr.Z-man 08:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:SIG, no other uses. Terraxos (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Arkas Spor Izmir

[edit] Template:Allan De Genova

[edit] Template:IQ and the Wealth of Nations

[edit] May 17

[edit] May 16

[edit] Template:Death date and 81

[edit] Template:User Shia 3

Template:User Shia 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This one is the same as User Shia 1 and User shia.--BigDevil ^Talk 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Moderate keep While it may be fairly close to {{User shia}}, personally when I look for userboxes for my userpage, I $like to have several to choose from that are slightly different. If it's not identical, why does it hurt to have? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is identical and not useful. The way of wording them is different which has the same meaning.--BigDevil ^Talk 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy It is NOT identical to {{User Shia}} OR {{User Shia 2}}, but religious userboxes belong in userspace.--Aervanath's signature is boring 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy It's the personal version of Shia 1, and different enough in intended meaning not to delete it. Notice that (Shia 3) adds that this is the true philosophy of Islam, a non-neutral meaning that Shia 1 doesn't have at all. As a non-neutral statement, it shouldn't be on template space. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 15

[edit] Template:Eif

[edit] Template:Resolved comments

[edit] Spanish football club logo templates

[edit] Template:Irish songs

[edit] Template:FootnotesSmall

[edit] Template:TooManyTags

[edit] Template:Footer Movies Chiranjeevi

[edit] Template:Good Liar Barnstar

[edit] Template:PD-LOC

Template:PD-LOC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deprecated image license tag that has now been removed from all usages. The associated Category:LOC images needing copyright status check can also be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 23:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Does this interact at all with the LOC page at Commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LOC_images_needing_copyright_status_check ? Guroadrunner (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, other than the fact that both were the result of the PD-LOC template being deprecated both here and at Commons. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Assuming it is indeed deprecated, there's no need to keep this template. Terraxos (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Shia 2

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell (edit)

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, by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'.

[edit] Closing discussions

Closing procedures:

• Wikipedia:Deletion process#Templates for Deletion page

Closing in progress:

• None Currently.

[edit] To convert

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

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

[edit] 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 they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

GargoyleBot is a replacement for ^demonBot2, and is available for many large-scale orphaning or replacement projects.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached and have been orphaned can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 14

  • Template:Auto HP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (replace with {{convert}})
    • Note: Template:Auto hp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Template:Auto kW (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (replace with {{convert}})

[edit] Archive and Indices