Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2005


This template is redundant with Template:CompactTOC4, but for the removal of the numbers link. On this page, we've recently voted to remove a number of similar TOCs which existed for only these minor reasons. The numbers link on CompactTOC4 is innocuous and there's great benefit of continuing to keep the number of the TOC templates to a minimal few. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — no support for deletion => Keep; {{tfd}} has been removed from template.

  • 0 Delete: no supporting votes
  • 4 Keep: Samuel Wantman; BlankVerse; HappyDog; Rmhermen

  • Keep: I like the TOC's without numbers for pages that clearly won't need them. What's the harm? -- Samuel Wantman 07:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • (Delete)What is the harm? Well, we could end up back to where we were a few months ago with a dozen variations. What about those pages that "clearly won't need" the See also link? How about one for pages with no External links? It is drift, and it's something to avoid. The most popular TOC (Template:CompactTOC) has numbers and it's just fine that way because the extra link is harmless. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've been through this debate before with other TOCs without the number links and the vote has always been to keep them. Until TOCs can be implemented as a feature in the MediaWiki software, I prefer to have the cleaner choice of a no-number TOC when numbers there are no numbers. BlankVerse 02:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reasons as above. --HappyDog 19:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I went to the page looking for a "no number" TOC only to find the only one was up for deletion. Rmhermen 06:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly a malicious template created for people who list their images as GFDL but make a typo. The anon's only edit was to create this. The trouble is, there are a selection of pages ([1]) which appear to, effectively, licence their images under this mythical GFDL. Much as I would like to be bold, in this instance, I feel a little cautious about the legal basis for such a move. Smoddy (t) (e) 20:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The legal implications of adding text to this template, or of turning it into a redirect to {{GFDL}}, are unclear. I think that the only safe course of action is to Delete. Uncle G 11:34, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  • If What Links Here is complete and accurate for templates these days, subst it into the places where it's currently used and then redirect. Talk messages to the uploaders would probably well-received, too. —Korath (Talk) 13:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave it as a redirect, perhaps with a note pointing out the typo. Chamaeleon 13:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect - if redirected, protect it so that this can't happen again. -Sean Curtin 02:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have made this typo myself; it's natural. A protected redirect is correct. However, the legal status of pages licensed using this template before the redirect was put in place is uncertain.
In general, licensing templates should be protected as soon as they are created, and never again edited for any reason. Or, if such is possible, the engine should automatically protect every licensing template upon the first use. This leads naturally to the (very sensible IMHO) idea of a Licensing template: namespace.
  • A Licensing template is functionally different from all other templates in that it has legal effect at the moment in which it is first included by reference in a text. It can never be changed thereafter except:
    • via the arduous process of manually pasting in the complete, original template text in place of every such citation (which is just plain silly); or
    • by unanimous consent of every person who ever used it (which is sillier).
Where do I go to create a new namespace (and automatic protection rule)? — Xiong (talk) 03:45, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
Ugh, that would be annoying. What about when you just want to change the formatting? Goplat 02:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see that this template has been redirected to GFDL, and the redirect has been protected, so I think that wraps it up. Noel (talk) 23:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


A short update to last month's hotly contended debate about China-geo-stub and Taiwan-geo-stub. After considerable discussion here, at cfd, and at WP:WSS, the following compromise was reached on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting as regards the geo-stub categories relating to the two entities referred to as China. The former China-geo-stub template has been kept, but considerably altered to reflect its new destination category, and a new template Template:Taiwan-geo-stub has been created.

China-related and Taiwan-related stubs are still to be dealt with. Grutness|hello? 07:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Don't move - quite clearly no adjustment is required unless we wish to take a stance against China's recent non-secession act - which as we are NPOV, we don't, jguk 13:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Erm... don't move what? If you mean the geo-stubs, it's too late - that's all been dealt with. If you mean the non-geographic items, politics are just part of the problem. The histories of the two, erm, places are so intertwined that it's often difficult to work out which is the better reference category. Another problem is that removing the geo-stubs from Taiwan-stub has left the category nearly empty. As far as the politics is concerned, personally I'd prefer no move, too, but the use of the word "Taiwan" upsets and/or unnerves some people. For the time being, as-is/where-is seems to be good, but nsooner or later someone is bound to start kicking up a fuss. Grutness|hello? 01:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The decision - which you agreed to - was the wording that was there before. In other words, it WAS solved - there is no need for your temporary screwing with the template. It has been reverted, I'm glad to say (and not by me). Edit wars on templates are not a good thing - they can seriously stuff up the categories the templates lead to. Please do not change this again. Grutness|hello? 06:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (to clarify, this comment is not directed solely to Instantnood... it took almost three months of debate to reach agreement on the template, and it's been edited, amended and reverted nearly a dozen times since agreement was reached. Edit wars on templates we can do without!)

This template tries to make a general need specific. Many pages need images; these are, almost universally, the ones that have few images. Readers like to look at pictures, even avid bookworms. Even gratuitous graphics help to relieve the eye and are not superfluous.

No template is required on pages that contain insufficient images; the lack of images is immediately and glaringly obvious to all editors with any skill in graphics arts or any inclination to add such images. It is redundant and distracting to call attention to any one individual article by means of any template. — Xiong (talk) 14:47, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

There should be some discussion, once and for all, about whether to have templates like this. There was a suggestion somewhere (at WikiProject Stub sorting perhaps?) that {{stub}} and all the other stub templates be gotten rid of, as it's obvious what's a stub. You're suggesting that {{reqimage}} be gotten rid of for the same reason. One can argue that {{unknown}}, {{unverified}}, {{cleanup-copyedit}}, {{gcheck}}, and {{limitedgeographicscope}} should be deleted for the same reason. Perhaps we should move this discussion to WP:VP and decide what to do with all such templates.msh210 15:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. It is true that there is an "almost universal" need for images. But it is slightly naive to use that as an excuse to delete this template; some pages have a more acute need for images than others. (For instance, featured article candidates, animal pages, etc.) Also, while the need for extra images may be "immediately and glaringly obvious" to expert editors, others might not notice the need immediately; sometimes reminder templates are very helpful. Furthermore, dedicated picture contributors can look for pages listing the template to see where they can assist. The template also acts as a flag that the page is listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. (Since it is wrong to request images on specific pages, are you going to list that page for deletion as well?)-- FP 00:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not all articles require images, Especially for the more graphic kinds of subjects which may not be appriopiate for viewing. Maybe what reqimage needs is some rewording which specifically says that its for articles which needs images to greatly improve the information on the page to explain it properly or something...Specific in otherwords... Louisisthebest_007 17:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Joy [shallot] 18:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Am I getting deja vu, or is this template listed further up the page? Grutness|hello? 23:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This has the potential to become a permanent tag on many articles. Can't we use Wikipedia:Requested pictures and barring that, assume that almost every article would be better with an illustration? re: Grutness' question, TfD has also had Template:Picneed and Template:Reqimg listed recently. At the time, they were all separate templates. Reqimg has now been redirected to reqimage, which is up for deletion. re: Msh210's policy question, personally I support cleanup tags which are easily actionable. For cleanup-copyedit there is an obvious course of action to remove the tag. Tags like stub and npov are harder to act upon, but they indicate an important deficiency of the article. I don't think articles need to be tagged for lacking pictures. Rhobite 00:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Vik Reykja  04:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 06:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - one template to do this function is needed, and this one has seniority. -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)


(includes Template:Divboxred, Template:Divstyleamber, Template:Divstyleblue, Template:Divstylebrown, Template:Divstyleforest, Template:Divstylegray, Template:Divstylegreen, Template:Divstylenavy, Template:Divstylenone, Template:Divstyleorange, Template:Divstylepurple, Template:Divstylered, Template:Divstylewhite, Template:Divstyleyellow)

Seems to be another attempt at re-invent Template:Message box at first glance, but seems more for the purpose of making its creator's talk page posts super-colorful and more important. In short, we don't need another way to make colorful boxes, and this one is designed to be be used as a meta-template. It also depends on a dozen other templates, basically which act as stylesheets. -- Netoholic @ 07:49, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

  • Keep. — Itai (f&t) 11:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, with an exception. I must disclose that I created these templates, so perhaps this should be considered a defense rather than a vote. ("Created", not "own". Feel free to edit & improve.)
Template:Message box is unwieldy and allows too many choices; this results in a discordant variety of boxes, when a box is really just a box. Personally, I would not design an encyclopedia with more than perhaps 3 or 4 color schemes for boxes, but I was sure there would be a demand for more. So, here are 12 schemes, plus a none scheme that preserves the box model without actually drawing a box. Enough flexibility to satisfy most users; general enough for many different kinds of boxes; simple usage syntax:
I have refrained from cramming this solution down the community's throat; as of this writing, the only use of {{divbox}} is at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates, in which I rather directly oppose Netoholic's attempt to insinuate an unpopular and regressive opinion into WP policy. I object strongly to Netaholic's characterization of the templates in question as ...more for the purpose of making its creator's talk page posts super-colorful and more important.
  1. The template set has been carefully designed to be as general as possible;
  2. I do not need a template to box my talk colorfully, nor do I embrace such a trend.
  3. I hope nobody believes that anything is "more important" when set inside a colored box. It may be easier to pick out, but foolishness boxed is still foolishness.
My substantive comment on the Talk page mentioned was a rather long and detailed analysis of the regressive nature of Netaholic's proposal to deprecate templates that make more work for the machine, but less work for the human. Obviously, his nomination of {{divbox}} was perfectly in line with his agenda, but I leave it up to you to say if the nomination was in entirely good faith.
Since Netaholic cites his would-be policy as justification for nomination, I cite in turn my rebuttal; please consider included by reference (not by template!) my remarks at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#move to guideline status, headed "Disagree". You will discover them easily; they begin at the bright blue box, just after the remarks of several other users who appear to object to the very title of this subsection.
Also, I encourage any potential voters to examine divbox's talk page, with purpose, usage, and examples clearly defined.
I do support one removal; that of Template:Divboxred, which I admit was an early and clumsy attempt. I've tagged this one for speedy, and thank Netaholic for reminding me to clean up after myself.
I don't ask for a blanket endorsement of {{divbox}}, but let's try this in a few places first and see how the community likes it. — Xiong (talk) 11:40, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
Could you please summarize this, and move the full text to the template talk page? Long diatribes tend to disrupt voting, so most people keep to a couple sentences at most. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
You have nominated, in one fell swoop, 15 templates for deletion. If you wanted to debate this quietly, you might have expressed your concerns on {{divbox}}'s Talk page. Alternatively, you might have spoken against {{divbox}} on your opinion page. This is my summary argument, the full text of which includes the position I took at length upon that opinion page. I would like to believe you are open to debate on the merits, and I invite you to respond to my "diatribe" -- right here, at whatever length you find necessary. — Xiong (talk) 18:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Message_box cannot be fixed; it takes too many parameters. All existing references to it would also have to be fixed. Nor do I really support One Giant Change to the entire project. I think it's better to see how a change like this works in a few places before using it generally.
By the way, the speedy for divboxred has taken effect, so that point is moot. — Xiong (talk) 04:02, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

It is now over 168 hours (7 days) since this group of templates was nominated in mass, and the primary template tagged as a candidate for deletion. Per procedure, the discussion stage of this process has ended.

Outcome: No consensus has been achieved. The final tally of users who commented on the nomination is: 3 to keep, 4 to delete. This tally includes the creator and primary defender of the nominated template and also the nominator. The deletion is extremely controversial, and in accordance with our policy, the action directed is to remove this listing entirely from the workflow, archive the entire discussion to the nominated template's Talk page, and remove the {tfd} tag from the nominated template. See: Outcome (substage).

Please note that policy discourages the renomination of any template for a period of one month. We have surely enough work to do without reopening this running sore. Continued debate is discouraged, but entertained on the template's Talk page.

Strictly speaking, this note should not remain present in the workflow, and he who is bold to delete may do so. As a purely personal suggestion, he who performs this cleanup may wish to delay for a short period, and so note in edit summary, lest accusations be leveled of Orwellian manipulations, the avoidance of which is my reason for leaving this notice behind. — Xiongtalk 07:05, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

I've restore the votes, so that someone uninvolved can make the decision when the time comes. -- Netoholic @ 07:12, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Utterly redundant with Category:Powell and Pressburger films - David Gerard 22:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) Okay, if it satisfies the interest in all articles in chronological order requirement, then it's fine by me - David Gerard 19:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Useful for exploring Powell and Pressburger films, see also Category:Hitchcock films and Template:Alfred Hitchcock's films. The category orients the reader from, say, Category:Films by director, the template orients them within the individual film articles. I see them as complementary, not pointless repetition. Jihg 23:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I'd vote for it to be kept as well. As soon as it appeared I saw that it was much more useful for going from one of their films to another. Much easier that having to go via the Category:Powell and Pressburger films. If anything, it's the Category route that's the harder to navigate although that does have its uses as well. SteveCrook 00:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep --DuKot 20:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barely in use, but more importantly this doesn't seem like a very useful application for templates. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hrm. I'm certain I've seen this wording before, and not on any of the talk pages where it's currently instanced. Standard practice might well be to subst it in, since leaving it as a template might be seen as an affront to the user. —Korath (Talk) 10:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm probably the only person using this (since I didn't publicize it at all); usually I "subst" it just on general principle. But it's useful for bringing WP:CSD to the attention of editors who have improperly listed things for sppedy deletion. It seems more polite than just reverting a speedy nomination without comment. It hasn't been used recently because I haven't been doing CAT:CSD duty much recently. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that it should have more detail, but 'bad' content is never a reason for deleting something. Keep this template, just like we keep other messages like Template:Test, Template:Test2, etc. -Frazzydee| 18:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obsoleted before it was created by the convenient [+] tab (or "Post a comment" link) at the top of each talk page. Poor use of a template, since one would not anticipate the URL syntax ever changing and the impact is minimal if it ever did. -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

  • Keep. This template is indeed redundant on talk pages, but pages in the Wikipedia namespace lack the [+] tab, but many of them have comments added at he end. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not see this handy [+] tab anywhere on any page in my browser. Can anyone tell me how to get it? — Xiongtalk 09:15, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
    • In the Monobook skin, it's between the "edit this page" and "history" tabs. In Classic, it's on the quickbar under "Edit this page". In Cologne Blue, it's in the quickbar in the "This page" section. In the Nostalgia skin, you get it by switching to a different skin. —Korath (Talk) 09:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This has no business on article pages and we already have the same functionality on talk pages. Vik Reykja 17:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep there is no [+] on Wikipedia project pages. Grue 17:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds like you should make a bugzilla: request for this enhancement. Even it that function is needed, we'd still never want to use a template for that. -- Netoholic @ 23:23, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the underlying reasoning for the creation of the template, but not with it being implemented as a template. In the case of very long pages that are not already sectionized, this is a stylistic and significant problem but one that should be dealt with in another manner. In the case of very long (or any) page that is already sectionized, addition of a section is already easily accomplished by opening an existing section and adding text to either the top or bottom of the edit box, depending on the desired position of the new section in the article. Courtland 00:17, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
I just came across {{Usercomment}}, which is a rather specialized version of {{add}}. I maintain that if one be permitted, the more general {add} should be preferred; or both permitted. If anyone can show why {Usercomment} should be permitted, but not {add}, please do so. — Xiongtalk 03:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Keep, some people like to have this rather than the + button...new users often aren't aware of how to post comments, and leave it in a random place on your talk page. This helps that problem, and many users find this template prettier. Some also find it useful in the Wikipedia: namespace. -Frazzydee| 18:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This template sees a great deal of use, and it cannot be abandoned without a replacement, which I have thoughtfully provided.

(After some thought, I'm no longer convinced a replacement is needed; I now favor direct notification over possibly hostile tagging of any kind. But {{ttfd}} is there. — Xiongtalk 09:40, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC))

{tfd} suffers from two problems -- one a mere matter of style, the other a severe functional liability.

I shall take the first point first.

The text of the template reads,

This states quite clearly that the matter under consideration (here, on this page) is text. However, templates contain things other than visible text. No few templates include code, as well, which produces effects visible and invisible. Thus, any reader who stumbles upon a {tfd} tag may be misled -- perhaps it is not the text at all which has been so generated, but the colored box which encloses it. Or perhaps the template under consideration does nothing except force categorization, or fulfill some other obscure purpose. If nominated for deletion -- and tagged in this fashion -- every instance of the disputed template results in the reader's attention being misdirected to the proposed deletion of the following matter. This might be the edit and page links!

I shall pass lightly over the clumsy wording and unattractive box, which is either too obtrusive or insufficiently so.

The second point is much more grave. Templates indeed contain much more than text; they contain code, instructions to the engine. And it is not inconceivable that one template be included in another. The interactions among these several snippets of code may be complex and unpredictable under the best of circumstances; adding another bit of stuff to an existing template may cause all manner of difficulty. Some users may not be able to foresee all the possibilities.

To illustrate this point, I insert for you here the entire content of the existing {tfd} tag, just as the parser sees it, warts and all:

Now I know, those of us with some skill in technical matters glory in this, but as a systems man, I would rather not have a naive user, doing his honest job of policing up the deadwood, open that in his browser and attempt to stuff anything into it. It's no use to say that if he messes it up, Somebody will come along later and fix it. By that time, dozens, perhaps hundreds of pages will have called the disputed template, page renderings may or may not have stalled, the cache will be stuffed, and everybody's Wikistress redlined.

At the very least, inserting {tfd} into a template immediately creates a so-called meta-template, a template which calls another. As Netoholic has so vigorously pointed out at Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, multiple levels of indirection load the engine. It is ironic that a template nominated for deletion on grounds of being an unnecessary and excessive load on the engine must become a greater problem because an additional level of indirection has been added to it with the {tfd} tag itself.

To sum up, {tfd}, a holdover from earlier times, must in its turn go. Its appearance is sophomoric, its message confused, its construction dubious, its actual effects abhorrent even to those who use it most frequently. The process of TfD must continue, of course, as before -- but the tag must be retired.

I have constructed a template more suitable for our purpose: {{ttfd}}. You will see that its text is worded with greater neutrality, permitting more flexibility in application. The enclosing box is unashamed -- perhaps overbold, but a wiser head than I may change the box color code. Best of all, it is designed specifically to be placed on the Talk pages of disputed templates -- thus the additional "T". On Talk, it can do no harm if malformed or vandalized; it is called only when needful and does not disrupt a range of pages. Of course, it has already been tagged for deletion, but since it has been so tagged on its Talk page, that does not wreck it for use in anticipation of your eventual decision.

At this point, the poker players among us have come to wonder whether, in a supreme fit of disrupting the project to make a point, I have followed procedure and tagged {tfd} with {tfd}, triggering infinite recursion and freefall into a bottomless hall of mirrors; the skittish ones eye the emergency exits. Never fear. I am not driven by technicality right over the brink of the abyss. The self-destruct button has not been pushed.

But this nomination is entirely sincere and in deadly earnest. I have tagged {tfd}'s Talk page with both {tfd} and {{ttfd}}; and I assert it correct to do so.

  • Absurd. Keep. I'll be more specific if someone convinces me you're not trolling. —Korath (Talk) 11:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - For fucks sake... I'd remove this listing altogether except I want people to see this. Xiong is becoming increasingly odd, creating random templates, calling for crusades against what he sees as "evil", aggressive edits, and direct personal attacks. Anyone want to co-sign an RFC? -- Netoholic @ 15:55, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  1. Disruptive use of a template
  2. -Attempt to correct use of template; rational justification given
  3. Resistance to correction; argument ad hominem
  4. -Attempt to improve template; rational justification
  5. Resistance to improvement; argument ad hominem
  6. -Nomination for template deletion; rational justification
  7. Lies and vituperation

Ah, well. Someone has gone and tagged {{ttfd}} right on the template itself; take a look. Apparently, the principle of tagging nominated templates directly is inflexible. No amount of common sense may be permitted to intervene. Well. I shall not dare to quarrel with the will of the majority.

Now, like it or not, {tfd} has been nominated for deletion, and on several excellent grounds, too. Therefore, it must be tagged. In truth, placing a {tfd} tag on {tfd} will not cause the Florida Gulf Coast to erupt in gouts of molten metal; I only forbore to do so because that seemed "absurd". I apologize for my deviation from accepted procedure. — Xiongtalk 17:05, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

  • Keep, of course. Vik Reykja 17:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why would you create an alternate tfd template? Simply propose changes on Template talk:tfd. Rhobite 05:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT --Carnildo 06:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As per Rhobite and Carnildo. Keep. Uncle G 11:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Oh dear lordy. Sure, the tfd notice needs some work, but deleting it and replacing it is overkill. Keep and modify if necessary - which, as Rhobite pointed out, should be done on Template talk:tfd, not here. Grutness|hello? 02:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but this nomination may be BJAODN worthy :) -Frazzydee| 03:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't BJAODN it. The nominator took it quite seriously, and seems to have left Wikipedia over the issue; see the template's recent history and some of the fallout on my talk page. —Korath (Talk) 05:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I think I underestimated the seriousness of this nomination. Please accept my apologies. -Frazzydee| 16:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Proposal to delete is utterly stupid. I believe Xiong is becoming deliberately disruptive. -- FP 06:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, nomination may be a troll.-gadfium 08:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote and discussion is archived at Template talk:Current U.S. Senators/TFD Vote Archive

Unused. In the rare event that a deleted page needs to be protected against re-creation vandalism, MediaWiki:Noarticletext is used, or the article left blank. —Korath (Talk) 05:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The use of MediaWiki:Noarticletext makes this template obsolete. Zzyzx11 05:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and rewrite. I dislike using MediaWiki:Noarticletext as it is confusing to fellow good faith editors. -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Given the rareness of pages being locked as empty, and the apparent lengthy discussions that have preceded them, I'd prefer them blank. The text of this template is equally (mildly) confusing, btw imho. Delete. Radiant_* 11:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite, I agree the text can be somewhat confusing as it is, but I'd even prefer this over a completely blank page as per Netoholics argument. --TVPR 21:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite: badly worded, but mediawiki:noarticletext isn't a valid alternative because it's not meant for these cases. It's meant for pages that don't exist, and can be edited. It would be very confusing to a new user to see something saying "Click here to create this page", but upon clicking, they can't actually edit it because it would be protected. -Frazzydee| 14:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pure laziness and extremely poor use of a template. This is apparently only created to facilitate creating documentation on the use of other templates. I think Wikipedia has gotten along fine without this for this long. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

  • Oh, I think documenting code is a fine thing to do, and documenting code in a consistent format, so others can come along and work with it, finer still. But this template is broken and does not serve its intended purpose. (Please see Template talk:Doctl). Can anyone fix it? Thank you. — Xiongtalk 09:20, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Keep. The talk page advocates using subst: on it. I don't think the template is entirely necessary, but I don't have a problem keeping it around. Vik Reykja 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Documentation of templates might well help to forestall unnecessary calls for deletion, or provide context for consideration of alterations to templates as circumstances and Wikipedia content changes. Courtland 23:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template seems reasonable and helpful. It might not be necessary, and it might not see a lot of use, but I don't see reason to delete it at this time. -- FP 00:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at making policy by fait accompli - reference to proposed policy Wikipedia:Importance, which is extremely contentious (see its talk). I could put around all manner of templates to give people the impression an extremely contentious proposed policy that is nowhere near passing is in fact policy, but that would of course be a WP:POINT-scorer. So for now I'll nominate this one as an extremely bad idea - David Gerard 09:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Variations on this theme: Template:Unencyclopedic, Template:Explain significance. —Korath (Talk) 10:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, Template:Unencyclopedic is slightly different. Several editors draw a distinction between "non-notable" and "non-encylopaedic". Uncle G 19:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. Template aids cleanup of articles that don't convey why the subject matter is notable. This is a useful pre-VfD step that reduces the workload of the VfD page in cases of newbie contributions RC-patrollers deem as borderline notable. Notability IS a deletion criteria, like it or not. Edit the template to remove the link to Wikipedia:Importance, if that bothers you. jni 12:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a "shot across the bows" warning that works in practice, and that is less drastic than the direct application of a VFD notice to a new article. Claims about setting policy are spurious. The template is descriptive. Keep. Uncle G 14:26, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
    • comment: When I want to take a shot across the bow at an article I address the authors through the Talk page of the article and/or specific authors who have been responsible for much of the content. Slapping a scarlet I (for Insignificant) on an article seems to be edging toward not acting in good faith, toward using public humiliation as a tool for content betterment. Not my idea of a good trend, frankly. Courtland 02:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
      • That's a complete mischaracterisation of the template. The template has nothing to do with humiliation, nor could it have if it tried. Furthermore, the notice points to the talk page of the article. Uncle G 19:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. It serves as a warning to newbies that their newly created article may be considered for deletion because notability is questioned. Zzyzx11 16:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not necessary, since Template:vfd is available. But this may be a useful half-step for editors who do not believe in deleting on sight. --Henrygb 16:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see this as a more harshly worded version of {{explain significance}}, a version in fact that passes judgement on the article presumabley as a way to accelerate the VfD process (I say this as it would seem that no response to this template message by authors could be construed as tacit agreement that the article should be deleted, a tactic that will no doubt be employed if the template is retained). I think that usage of the "explain significance" template in conjunction with the VfD process ... in its current and future forms ... is sufficient. Courtland 02:47, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
    • Talking about how the template "will be employed" is to ignore the fact that this template has been in employment for months. You are mischaracterising this as something that has only just been invented and deployed. And the implied idea that "passing judgement" is bad is just ludicrious. Every cleanup-xxxx template involves passing judgement. As for presuming that this is a way to accelerate the VFD process, it should have been clear from what Henrygb said that completely the opposite is true and that this template is geared towards decelerating the VFD process. Uncle G 19:13, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. per Courtland. BlankVerse 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. -Sean Curtin 22:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Either keep or redirect to {{explain significance}}. I found this template useful, but I agree it's redundant. --cesarb 20:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This template duplicates {{add}} :

Worse, its wording is more specialized, so its range of applicable use is restricted. In any case, it's been pointed out that most skins have tabs that provide this function, without the chatty comment. — Xiongtalk 03:49, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

  • Delete both -- Netoholic @ 04:37, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template is not a duplicate of {{add}}. The "add new comment" link is the only thing these two templates share. {{usercomment}} is not "chatty"; it simply welcomes and asks the user to sign his/her comments, and how to do so. This template is currently used on over 30 user talk pages, including mine (I put a static version up due to the uglification of the tfd tag). That's more than some article series boxes can boast. Why use it? First, it helps keep the talk pages less cluttered in edit mode. Second, not all users are aware of the + tab function; this is especially pertinent to administrators such as myself, due to the high number of messages left by anonymous or otherwise "newbie" users. (Before adopting the template, I frequently had to reshuffle comments into chronological order.) It's a harmless template that serves a purpose. -- Hadal 06:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, serves a signficant purpose. I based my talk header section on it, and if deleted, {{toppostusertalk}} and {{bottompostusertalk}} will need to go too. (If you nominate them for deletion, just because I mentioned them here, you are a heartless troll and I will consider it a personal attack.) Alphax τεχ 09:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Completely support Hadal on this. Please reconsider your proposal, and soon, because the TDT tag on many user pages doesn't look good (I'm trying to be polite). Humus sapiensTalk 09:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As said above, it's a commonly used User_talk page decoration. Disclaimer: I'm one of these users. --cesarb 12:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't see any good reason for deleting it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons given by Hadal. -- FP 23:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep its a good intro for user talk pages. --Nkrosse 19:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep very useful. TAS 09:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(and multiple redirects)

I'm note sure how this actually saves more than a couple keystrokes, and isn't worth the overhead inherent in redirect/template use. Don't see any room for future changes with it either. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

  • Keep, saves more than "a couple keystrokes". Rather well used. Maybe a bot could go through and subst: them all every once in a while. --SPUI (talk) 04:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Subst doesn't seem to work with this template, alas, or I'd do so religiously. Example: {{subst:Template link|vfd}} -> NaodW29-nowiki291204952c9c7e0200000001vfdNaodW29-nowiki291204952c9c7e0200000002 —Korath (Talk) 07:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Subst has a problem with <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Try it now: {{purge}}. Alphax τεχ 16:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would agree, but it seems your definition of "a couple" and mine vary — the actual number is 45 + n, where n is the length of the template name. I find it a very handy convenience. Besides which, it already has a zillion uses embedded in text, all of which are now preceded by two ugly template-for-deletion banners. Can we please get this off this page as soon as possible? Deco 04:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The overhead is much like that of {{article}} or {{user}} (which also get subst:'ed a lot). It's a real pity that subst: doesn't work for it. --cesarb 12:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to {{template}} for uniformity with {{article}} and {{user}}: immensely useful, especially now it has been modofied to be subst-safe. --Phil | Talk 09:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Editor time is far more precious than server time, and even if using templates costs the servers some extra processing work (which I don't buy) that cost will go away in a couple years. dbenbenn | talk 13:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. {{tl}} requires far fewer awkward keystrokes than <nowiki></nowiki>. --Carnildo 20:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I nominated this a while back (December), but the vote ended 2-2. I recently re-checked this, and found its still only being used on five articles. It would be better to use the much more common Template:Otheruses, since place name disambiguation (alone) is really very rare. Take for example its use on California. The related disambig page references quite a few places, but also some non-geographic entries. -- Netoholic @ 17:14, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

  • Keep This should be available where is it appropriate. Oliver Chettle 09:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is highly appropriate, and probably the articles using Otheruses should be converted. Smoddy 09:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Pointless to renominate a template that is bothering nobody. — Xiongtalk 16:41, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably has limited applicability, but it's harmless. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revival of the past deleted colors template. Delete Andros 1337 02:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • If I knew which "colors template" you were referring to, I could refute your claim that I had "re-created" it. As it is, this template simply links together the 16 color names defined by the HTML 4.01 specification, in an analogous manner to {{EMSpectrum}}, as part of WikiProject Color. Keep, BTW. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 11:32, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks like it may be useful. Grue 11:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, we keep odder templates, and this one is a clear-marked one which is useful. Circeus 00:02, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant with Web colors#Standard color names. IMO the articles including the template should simply link to this page. template:infobox color could be expanded to include the standard HTML name as well. -- Rick Block 00:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- It's very handy to be able to navigate quickly among the colors. One is tempted to search for all colors with articles of their own, and generate a huge template with tiny swatches for each one. But I forbear.
Web colors#Standard color names cannot be used for navigation; it would be too bulky. Template:infobox color is already well on its way to Polish locomotive engineer family tree size; I might try to slim it down. In most cases, anyway, the standard name is the WP article name. Duplicating it would only cause confusion -- and, as well, {infobox color} provides no navigation, nor should it.
I have added small swatches for each color and greatly improved its appearance, at no increase in size. Also, added CSS color orange -- for a total of 17 colors, 16 of which are found in both specifications. Also checked on all pages in which it appears to see that it displays properly. — Xiongtalk 02:57, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a template at all, but a discussion of a tfd of some other template. It has few incoming links and serves no purpose. — Xiong (talk) 02:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — no opposition to deletion

Comment: It is the discussion from a VfD for the Königsburg article. This is part of a large number of pages from Wikipedia's ancient history when VfD votes were kept in the Template name space (for more examples, see Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace). All of there should probably be moved to match current VfD practices after some sort of consensus vote covering all of them, but they should not be voted on one at a time here. BlankVerse 09:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Precisely... that is a project in itself. -- Netoholic @ 07:01, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Comment & Action. Though you (BlankVerse and Netoholic) are right about dealing with them en masse, the present case should be resolved in a one-off to clear this page and some note added to the TfD process for future contingencies. I've added a link to the VfD page to Talk:Kaliningrad to try and satisfy part of the VfD process. The {{VfD-Königsburg}} template had already been orphaned except for non-Main space links. Courtland 17:50, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Non-voting comment: Please don't delete this template (yet). I am declaring it as indefinitely on hold, and would appreciate it if others respected this decision until my concerns have been addressed on Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion. I think that the policy of deleting when there are no votes violates Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which is an official wikipedia policy. Please don't vote on this template for the purpose of achieving consensus...that would defeat the purpose of a consensus and would be essentially gaming the system. Thanks. -Frazzydee| 00:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After over a month, there was no support for deleting this template, so it was kept. -Frazzydee| 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All there is to this template is this:
This template is useless and users can put that on there by themselves. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 23:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

This was already nominated, orphaned, and logged as being deleted, but it doesn't look like an admin "pushed the button" (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05#Template:Deletebecauseoncommons).

We already have two templates which handle both aspects of this one. Template:NowCommons documents that the image is at Commons, and Template:ifd marks those images which are up for deletion. Compare here where I replaced use of this template with the appropriate ones. There is no special reason to combine these two ideas into a single template. -- Netoholic @ 16:01, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

  • Keep, useful. --SPUI (talk) 15:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. First, there is already a template called NowCommons, which tells fellow Wikipedians that the following image is now at the Commons. However, then a process begins that users have to change the links to the image at the Commons, which is time consuming. Once that is done, the image can be either put on IfD or speedy delete with the reasons of it being obsolete and also an orphan. Zscout370 15:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is for the specific case when the image on commons has the same name as the image here. --SPUI (talk) 15:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops. Well, there is a image/situation that I know of that exactly fits this profile. I will check this TfD and see what course of action should be taken. Zscout370 15:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clarify its purpose and use. --MarkSweep 21:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I added it to one of the pages listing templates when I created it, but it was quickly reverted. --SPUI (talk) 22:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have several images I've uploaded to en, and now reuploaded to Commons. I wanted to delete the en versions so the Commons versions show through, but I hate having that {{ifd}} on there. It's just temporary, but there's no reason that viewers should see that notice. Adding {{NowCommons}} doesn't help much because unless someone knows what Commons is, it doesn't really explain. If I were a random visitor and clicked on an image to get the larger one, I would not understand why this apparently good image was up for deletion, and even a casual editor might not understand. If I can't get my images deleted speedily (as Commons redundancy is not a criterion for speedy deletion), I would at least like the deletion notice to clearly explain that it is because there is now a redundant copy and there is no problem with the image per se. This is not just a combination of those two templates, in my opinion. Note that this is not a problem for images which are uploaded under different names to Commons; in that case, the other templates work fine. A casual viewer to the article would see the new Commons image if he followed the link and would be unaware of the old local version which was up for deletion. Anyone who came to the old image would have come specifically seeking that image, and the {{NowCommons}} and {{ifd}} would be more than sufficient. But in the event that you actually think the original name is perfectly adequate and want to move to Commons, while the image is in IFD the article viewers will see the deletion notice, and I don't think the two-template combination is adequate. — Knowledge Seeker 23:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If it is images you have created, then it can be speedied, since your asking for your own work to be deleted. With other images, they go onto the IfD, since many images on there are being tossed because they are on the Commons now. Zscout370 23:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that they should be speedied. I, however, was unable to get them to be deleted. I even tried putting speedy tags on them explaining that I was the uploader, had uploaded to Commons under the same name, and wanted these deleted, but I think they sat for over 24 hours without being deleted. Perhaps no one deleted them because as far as I can see, requesting your own work to be deleted is not a speedy deletion criterion, and the page explicitly states that moving to Commons is not a criterion. Eventually I decided I might as well list them on IfD, since either way they were sitting with an ugly deletion tag but at least this way something would be done about it. How would I (or a normal user) go about getting them deleted in the future? — Knowledge Seeker 01:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Befriend an admin and see what happens :). But in all seriousness, I had the images I placed on speedy deleted within a span of 24 hours. I would try that process again, but if nothing works, then ask an admin as see what can happen. What you also can do is change the links from the image you want gone to the image that is going to be used from now own. I think we sould start moving this to my talk page. Zscout370 01:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • When I first made this template, I based it off the speedy template, and was told that moving to Commons is not a speedy criterion. So if it ever becomes one, it can be reverted. --SPUI (talk) 01:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • As I told Knowledge, what you do is make sure the new image is linked/embeded in all of the pages were the old image is at. Once that happens, the old image becomes an orphan and obsolete. Those two things are a criteria for a Image Delete, albeit time consuming. Zscout370 01:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Can't change the links if the image is uploaded to Commons under the same name (at least, I don't know how to do that). The link stays the same; you have to wait for the local copy to be deleted so that the Commons one shows up. The image to be deleted will never be an orphan, unless you temporarily remove the images from any articles that feature it, then revert once the image has been deleted. — Knowledge Seeker 01:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Depopulate by deleting all images that use it; then redirect to {{NowCommons}}. Alphax τεχ 07:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)Delete, limited purpose template. Only useful where the image has exactly the same name. {{NowCommons}} should suffice. Alphax τεχ 04:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- perhaps fix it up. — Xiongtalk 17:01, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

The template is unnecessary and misleading. There is no need for fair use here. Copyright rules are stated at ECB. There are three cases:

  • Banknotes: "As long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes they can be used without prior authorisation of the ECB.".
  • Coins, common face: "All or part of the designs on the sides of the coins may be copied onto flat surfaces without need for authorisation (drawings, paintings, films, images, etc.), provided that the copies are in keeping with the original and are not detrimental to the image of the euro."
  • Coins, national face: The issuing country's rules apply

ECB also provides images that you can use accordingly. Hawklord 13:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

What image tag do you think these images should have? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to used ECBs/EUs own words:
  • Banknotes: CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat they cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes
  • Coins, common face: CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat they are not detrimental to the image of the euro
  • Coins, national face: some kind of fair use may be necessary, but Money-EU is too general. You have to check each country's rules individually.
Hawklord 20:57, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- No need to insert excess text. The offending reference to fair use is gone and an appropriate reference to ECB policy inserted. The template is fixed, and may go on its way. — Xiongtalk 19:00, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form, but possibly make sure nothing's being improperly labeled? --SPUI (talk) 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we have templates that list things that are public domain (e.g. flags, Soviet pictures) I am sure this one can stay and be used well. Zscout370 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is still misleading. The current description can be applied to euro banknotes only, although the template is used for many coin images too. If renamed to Money-euro-banknotes, it could work. Hawklord 19:41, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

The current description applies to notes and coins equally. ECB permits both to be reproduced. — Xiongtalk 04:53, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
No, it does not apply to coins. I have already quoted the relevant parts of the reproduction rules, read them again. Please provide a reference that supports what you are saying. Hawklord 08:28, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Per WP:WIN a crystal ball. Related articles are currently on VfD for the same reason. Radiant_* 12:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • This template could be safely moved to the creator's user space. I mean, we know that the 2006 Commonwealth Games are going to take place, and we can save the guy some work when we need the template later. Userfy. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, while I agree that the articles on VfD should be userfied, the template should be safe in the main namespace for now, since it won't be appearing on any pages. --bainer 00:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we can't userfy the template as well. Radiant_* 08:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason why we can't userfy it, but (more importantly) no reason why we should. -- P Ingerson 08:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keeping the templates, per P Ingerson is easier than a userfy. Of course, userfy won't be a big problem either. Sjakkalle 10:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is going to sound a bit silly, but keep, but as long as it isn't used. I think it belongs in the template namespace, but it shouldn't be used until we come close to the 2006 commonwealth games. There's simply too many red links and too little to fill them up with right now. -Frazzydee| 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Violates WP:FAITH and WP:NPOV. LevelCheck 19:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proven sockpuppets are sockpuppets. They violate neither the good faith nor the NPOV policies. And there are lots of sockuppets around. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. When used correctly, they save the admins time and trouble finding out individuals. Plus, Sock Puppets are generally not allowed on Wikipedia (and if they are allowed, they have very close scruitiny). It does not violate the first one, since some sock puppets usually go around Wikipedia policies, and there is no "good faith" about that. The second one does not apply, since NPOV deals with points of views on topics, not on User's behaviors. Though people might have 10 pov's on a subject, but usually agree if someone is acting like a good person or a complete dick. Zscout370 20:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is used to mark users who have been proven to be sockpuppets. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • . . . and yet it says "Suspected sockpuppets of X", and in a number of cases there is no proof presented. (Reasonable suspicion, yes, but rarely anything conclusive.) Keep and remove any that are placed without some accompanying evidence; I've added a parameter to make that easy. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. --SPUI (talk) 23:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although it probably should be renamed to something less generic since it should only be used for known sockpuppets of banned or sanctioned users ("Known sockpuppets", "Abusive sockpuppets", "Sockpuppets of banned users"?), and there probably should be some better policy on when the template is used. BlankVerse 23:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 23:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, very useful. RickK 05:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful template for identifying persistent sockpuppet creators/block evaders. --Calton | Talk 05:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful template for identifying persistent sockpuppet creators/block evaders. Plus it's gratifying to see a humiliating mascot on their User page--yes I did just say "mascot", I would view this as the closest we've had to having one! It's no Tux, but it sure is cute... awww... and as said above it's not honestly breaching WP:FAITH because the sockpuppet already did that! Master Thief Garrett 11:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as concisely informative. -- Hoary 15:33, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Keep -Frazzydee| 22:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - hasn't this been up for deletion before? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why is this a question? — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 23:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No idea why this is being questioned, maybe some people just like to vote on stuff. ;-) -- ChrisO 23:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Need I say more? -- Natalinasmpf 00:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you've been around for a while, WP:POINT. --Deathphoenix 02:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just saw all the "puppets suspected to be Sollog". It's crazy. Ben talk contr 06:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Postdlf 02:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Has a genuine purpose here. (Oh, by the way, Wikipedia is Communism!) – ClockworkSoul 12:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(and Template:Prettytable100)

These are nothing more than "glorified stylesheets" (in the spirit of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates), and should be moved into the main CSS stylesheets, if truly needed.

This is a bad use for templates. Suggest that any boxes using these templates be edited to simply include the styles, and perhaps a separate page be created to deal with this instead (perhaps Wikipedia:Standard table format). -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

  • Keep. This template is used on a large number of pages, which proves its usefulness (also, all of these would need to be fixed if the template were to suddenly disappear [2]). I have used this template a number of times since someone introduced me to it, and found it to be very useful. I know I don't fully understand how the programming works for tables, and it's nice to have it worked out already for you, jguk 19:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I would never suggest just "deleting" this. I will offer to run a bot to make whatever replacements are necessary on the related pages. If the code is moved into the main stylesheets, that avoids the overhead of processing the template, and is just as easy to use. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are definitely needed. Wasn't there some problem with some browsers not supporting the CSS selectors and so the HTML was necessary? If the CSS class were first created (and worked), then I'd change my vote. I don't want this template deleted while people still play around with trying to get the CSS to work in all browsers. — Knowledge Seeker 20:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:13, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not possible to replace with CSS. If the css is implemented and shown to work for everyone, I will change my vote. - Omegatron 22:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • WHY? It's a while since I've worked with CSS and I may have forgotten some details, but that sure looks like genuine CSS code to me. Therefore, why can't real CSS replace it? Master Thief Garrett 00:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Because it contains table formatting as well, which is not supported by IE yet. See Template_talk:Prettytable#move_this_to_CSS. If you can figure out how to do it and be supported by all browsers, knock yourself out. - Omegatron 14:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It gives a nice uniform look to the many pages where it is used. The style fits well with the various infoboxes and the table of contents. −Woodstone 11:11, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Keep - should be used with subst instead of templates, though. Snowspinner 14:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 23:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates is not official policy and it would be inappropriate to base a deletion on it, and because this template seems to be in reasonably widespread use. Firebug 23:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that this is not the ideal solution for dealing with things like this, but moving to delete the template is not going to improve Wikipedia. Instead first work to create a better solution and make the template unnecessary. It will go away when it is no longer used. Nohat 23:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I love your attitude. We should make that policy... - Omegatron 14:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. K1Bond007 04:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

A template doing the work of categories. Seems to be an attempt to make every kanji- or kana-related article link to every other kanji- or kana-related article. Gwalla | Talk 02:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. There already is a category for this. adamrice 15:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This template doesn't look like a category to me, it looks like a grouping of the various writing systems used in the Japanese language. I find this quite useful. Vik Reykja 02:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Zscout370 02:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Japanese system of writing is insanely complicated, and it's nice to see things pulled together in an organized fashion -- in a way that categories cannot do. Besides, it looks rather nice. --Calton | Talk 05:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. The various methods of writing in Japanese can be very confusing, and to top off the confusion, there are multiple methods of transliteration (i.e. rōmaji). This template provides some much needed organization to help access the information available on the Wikipedia on Japanese writing systems. BlankVerse 07:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. I copyedited the template from fr, where templates are used much more often than in en and they make navigating there very easy. Some days ago, I addressed criticism by Gwalla at Template_talk:Japanese_writing, but so far, there has been no reaction and I am quite surprised to see it moved here suddenly without any trace of an attempt for a comment. Ben talk contr 14:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)