Template:Pluto Footer

• Delete - remarkably useless. Only used on Pluto (planet) and Charon (moon), simply a repeat of an obvious link that already occurs in the article. --Tothebarricades 20:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - Indeed useless, it was created simply to follow the example of the other planet templates (Earth, Mars, Jupiter...). Urhixidur 14:22, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
• Delete, pretty pointless. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Uniformity in layout with other planet pages and always a possibility of a second, so far undiscovered moon which would be added to the template - Burwellian 16:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless unless second, third, or tenth moon of Pluto discovered, which is currently not the case. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is one of those "symmetry" templates used for consistency in Wikipedia. While it is quite puny, it's harmless. I'd like it if it were edited to look wider. --Titoxd 23:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

Template:Speedyimage

Bogus speedy deletion template (there is no such CSD criteria). Delete. --cesarb 21:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obscene images that are candidates for speedy deletion need a more seculded category therefore this template was made. I am the hero of eliminating those obscene images from the normal CSD category. --SuperDude 21:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No such CSD criterion, and SuperDude has invented the policy that this notice points to. SuperDude, if you want to make "obscene" images deletable on sight, you will receive plenty of resistance from the community. Wikipedia is not censored. android79 21:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with associated categories Category:Obscene image candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Obscene images. Creator also made Wikipedia:Obscene image and has tagged a bunch of images for deletion. Oh yeah, and you're right, they should be eliminated from the normal CSD category, because they aren't speedies. --Dmcdevit�t 21:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and all applicable categories and pages as per Dmcdevit and User:Android79. Also, I had already tagged the images with an IFD... which is the proper way of getting rid of images, since none of them are considered speedies. Plus nudity isn't obscene; see: WP:NOT. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No such criterion, no such category, no such policy. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, together with the fake policy and all the rest of it. Please. - ulayiti (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What other people said, though I applaud SuperDude's interest in making sure Wikipedia is not a porno farm as long as he keeps in mind that there are valid uses of nudity in Wikipedia. Dragons flight 23:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dmcdevit. ∞Who?¿? 23:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. -Splash 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Misleading since there's no such speedy deletion criteria. Angela. 02:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dmcdevit. Indeed can't this be speedy deleted as a form of vandalism? DES 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no such speedy deletion criterion. I wouldn't call the template vandalism, but I do suspect it's making a point. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

Template:SOWL

Obsoleted by Template:Consonants.  Denelson83  23:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am not a linguist. However, the two templates look radically different and are presumably trying to do different things. I note however that very few pages link to the template proposed for deletion compared to Template:Consonants.--AYArktos 23:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. I don't fully understand the obsolescence here, but I'm no linguist/grammarian. Can the nominator explain a little further? -Splash 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links listed in Template:SOWL are already covered in Template:Place of articulation and Template:Manner of articulation. Template:SOWL was formerly used exclusively in the IPA consonant articles, but that template did not link to any of those articles. Template:Consonants, which I created to replace Template:SOWL, does have links to those consonant articles, and I actually replaced all of those Template:SOWL transclusions with Template:Consonants, which I think fits the articles it is now transcluded in better than Template:SOWL.  Denelson83  02:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the response. This is clearly an expert area, however, and my ignorance of the topic is overwhelming. I have made my 'no vote' vote clear up top. -Splash 02:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and/or expand {{Consonants}}. Right now, Consonants simply can't replace SOWL completely. As someone more than passing familiar with IPA, even I am not sure exactly where all of the places of articulation are in the IPA table. I have to hover over the links to see "velar fricative" and whatnot. On top of that, the SOWL template will get you to information about vowel sounds; this appears to be totally absent from Consonants. In summary, it's very hard for me to see how Consonants makes SOWL obsolete. —HorsePunchKid→龜
  • Well, if you want to keep Template:SOWL intact, that would mean obsoleting Template:Manner of articulation and Template:Place of articulation, and moving any links in those two templates but not in Template:SOWL into that template. Besides, Template:Consonants is supposed to be a navigational template for the specific IPA consonants, and adding the labels for manner and place of articulation to it would just cause it to become needlessly bloated.  Denelson83  20:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Template:SOWL is misnamed (it should be called Template:Phonetics) and incomplete (no links given to the places of articulation of vowels). Template:Consonants is much better, and I see there is a Template:Vowels to complement it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm no longer sure about my vote. It looks like Denelson83 has already taken {{SOWL}} out of every page that it showed up on. I think that action was limited to consonant pages, in which case it's certainly fine. I would like to see the {{Consonants}} template updated to match {{Vowels}} a little bit more closely; in particular, I'm still interested in seeing the articulation labels added as in this standard chart. Certainly Consonants still doesn't obsolete SOWL; it's just totally different. So my question is: Are there any pages that would be served better by SOWL than either Vowels or Consonants? (By the way, I appreciate the improvement since this got listed here! Perhaps the points I've brought up here would be better addressed on the template's talk page?) —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Integral theory4

Delete: Fork of {{Integral theory}}, not used anywhere. —PrologFan {Talk} 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just move it to my user page. --goethean ॐ 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved it. As far as I'm concerned, you may delete the redirect speedily. --goethean ॐ 22:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movecat

This is borderline duplicating of Template:Cfd, and it also, when placed prior to the cfd discussion closing, encourages people to empty the category, in direct violation of the Cfd notice: Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered. --Kbdank71 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed, this confuses the issue more than helping it. Courtland 18:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment doesn't this indicate a category that has already undergone CfD approval for merger or rename, and thus indicate a category that will only exist long enough to move articles out of it before being deleted? 132.205.3.20 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear to indicate that yes. However, the CfD notice usually remains on the cat until it has been fully dealt with, and that contains a link to the CfD page/discussion. Generally, cats are moved/renamed more or less on the spot either by human or by bot, so this notice doesn't have much of a life. -Splash 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; risks being placed during discussion, is not used in the CfD process and would only be appropriate very transitorily. -Splash 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otherlang

This template was proposed as a test (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles_in_other_languages#Template) but It has been replaced by Template:FAOL. CG 08:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to {{FAOL}}. violet/riga (t) 11:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that redirect is appropriate because Template:FAOL requires parameters while Template:Otherlang doesn't. CG 18:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if it was just a test that's replaced we don't need it. -Splash 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, already superceded. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nn-bio

As an admin who handles CSD I almost speedy deleted this one. Like Template:Db:a1 I put here on TFD earlier, I am very concerned about having specialized CSD tags for each and every CSD criterion. This is instruction creep. The less templates added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, the better. Only {{nonsense}} and {{deleteagain}} are useful as extra templates, since they are very common; the rest can get {{deletebecause}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme Delete. more m:Instruction creep. If the folks on RC patrol really think that there need to be some more templates, the should get together with the admins handling CSD and agree on some reasonable templates with reasonable names. Otherwise, as User: Zzyzx11 said, the fewer templates the better. BlankVerse ∅ 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed, this one is not needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• See also {{deletevanity}} and its redirect {{dv}}. —Cryptic (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These now redirect to {{nn-bio}} which is now docuemted where the creator of these two failed to find them. DES 16:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created this as a tool. How is it instruction creep? No one is required to use it, it simply provides a quicker way to do the exact same thing. If soemone objects to the name (which seems fairly clear to me) then suggest a better one, the tempalte can always be moved to a better name if one is proposed. If anyone prefers not to use this template, that person can use {{db}} insted. But this saves a lot of typing when encountering many non-notable-bios, and does no harm. The name is not nearly as esoteric as that of Template:Db:a1 DES 14:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see the instruction, so I don't see the creep. Why would you have me type exactly those words out by hand all the time? What would that achieve? -Splash 14:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment m:Instruction creep says Instruction creep occurs when a well-meaning user thinks "Hrm ... this page would be better if everyone was supposed to do this". Nowhere does this template say that everyoen is supposed to do soemthing, and nowhere is it even hinted that everyone who wnats to speedy an articel under CSD A7 should or must use this tempalte, so where is the instruction, and where is the creep? An expanded toolset is not the same as an expanded list of instructions. DES 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply: It is m:Instruction creep when a well-meaning person starts adding all sorts of addition ways to say {{deletebecause}} when that template (and it's very short redirect {{db}}) is sufficient for the task. I think that you should be paying particularly close attention when one of the admins who is responsible for responding to the various delete tags when he says this one is unneeded and unwanted. BlankVerse ∅ 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm intrigued. What difference does it make to the deleting admin if the words on the screen were typed in manually or templatized? -Splash 16:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Extremely useful template. About 30% of newly created articles need this tag. It is needed far more than {{nonsense}}. --malathion ^talk 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The template is not necessary. Hall Monitor 16:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply {{nonsense}} is not "necessary" either but it is extremely useful. The only difference is that {{nonsense}} is already in common use. I don't see any reason why those of us who regularly babysit Wikipedia for new vanity articles should have to type all that every time. I tagged more than 10 articles in an just hour with it. --malathion ^talk 16:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm struggling to see the instruction creep. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Instruction creep? I don't see how. Anyway, it's sure easier than typing all that out. --Canderson7 20:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No instructions, no creep. Handy shortcut for {{deletebecause}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickptar (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral as I helped create one of the above templates and would probably constitute a conflict of intrests. That being said, the reason people see a creation for these templates is a) there was a new CSD which partially warrants it and b) vanity pages are so very common on new pages patrol that this is pretty useful to any non-admin. That being said, I don't think EVERY speedy delete category requires a tag but this one is so frequently used that it makes sense to have it's own template. There's my two cents. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep The majority of speedies are this one, and I'd rather not have to type this every time I need it. If we're going to get rid of templates, I'd suggest {{nonsense}}, since most articles tagged with it don't fall under Wikipedia's definition of the word. Denni☯ 01:10, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
• Delete, I would prefer that people take the time to type {{db|reason}} rather than use this. JYolkowski // talk 01:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what interests me about this debate. What are you expecting me to type that will not be achieved by using the template? At the moment I type no assertion of notability. What's the difference between typing every letter, and templatizing it? -Splash 02:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main difference is that the template itself appears on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The less things that are not meant to be deleted appear there, the better. Also notice that it's not even on the "do not delete these" list (which I believe most administrators do not even look at anymore). --cesarb 02:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would things work better if this was moved to something like Template:Hey, administrators! Don't delete this template!, and leaving the redirects - which won't show up in the category - in place? —Cryptic (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking of something along the same lines, but a bit neater. Just make this and other related template subpages of either template:delete, or template:deletebecause. That way, they're all listed together, and the confusion is avoided. You can always use the redirects, and they won't appear in the category. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not instruction creep as it's in no way compulsory for the CSD-marker. Even if we get one template per CSD marker, that wouldn't pollute the template namespace too badly would it? --fvw* 07:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I find it very helpful. The template contains quite a bit of helpful explanation and a citation of the releved CSD rules, which would be a pain to type out manually. --Pyroclastic 08:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's faster to type, you don't have to use it so it's not instruction creep. cohesion | talk 09:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above, this can certainly be useful. - ulayiti (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• leep.@@@@
• Keep. Tools are not instruction creep; that said, make sure that these criteria templates are similar in format and appearance to {{db}}. --Titoxd 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename. Since one of the complaints about these templates (see also Template:db:a1 below) is that they end up sprinkled throughout Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, making it inconvenient for administrators who are cleaning out the category. Perhaps we can agree on a single prefix for all the speedy deletion templates so that they appear together in the (alphabetically-sorted) category? For example, this template could be renamed Template:db-bio. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same should be used for {{{Db:a1}}}, which is up for deletion below. If specialized templates are going to be used, start them with "db-" so they don't clutter the category. --Titoxd 20:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename. I think it is a useful template for a very common speedy category (remember these are very common which is why this critera was created to begin with). No one is required to use it so I really don't see any downside to having it around. I do agree with the proposal to rename it though. Its currently a bit clumsy to type/remember. Gblaz 22:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  Reply I suggest using {{dv}}, which redirects to this template and is easy to type/remember (Delete Vanity). --malathion ^talk 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete; instruction creep, and unprofessional in the cryptic reference to "CSD A7." (Newbies will call that "proof by intimidation.") Certainly needs a renaming if the consensus is "keep." Also, Blu Aardvark suggests turning this template into a subpage of {{db}}, which I think is an excellent idea, as long as it's actually possible. We could have {{db/test}}, {{db/nonsense}}, {{db/vandalism}}, {{db/again}}, and {{db/vanity}}. As far as I'm concerned, "non-notable" and "vanity" ought to be synonymous; if somebody's making a page about a non-notable person and it's not out of vanity, I want to know why. :) (With the exception of Internet fads like the Numa Numa kid, I guess.) --Quuxplusone 22:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply If you think the "CSD A7" reference is bad, please feel free to edit the template, or bring that up on the talk page. Incidentally, I agree that it shouldn't be explicitly named in the template, since the candidates for speedy deletion critera are already linked. As for the subpage idea, I wouldn't mind that, just as long as the template exists in some easy to type form. --malathion ^talk 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've taken the liberty of moving the template to Template:Deletebecause/vanity, to help clear up the category listing a bit. All of the redirects have been corrected accordingly, and you can use either of them. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have moved it back and reverted the edit. The rename makes this useless as a tool, or nearly so, the point is to have soemthign shrot and memorable to type. Having to type "deletebecause/vanity" is worhless. Besiude this is not about "vanity" this is about non-notability or more exactly absence of any claims of notability. The reference to CSD A7 should in my view stay, ther is already a link to the CSD, and this tells anyone seeing this mesage exactly which itme on that page is being referenced. I am trying to assume good faith, but these chages seem like attemps by people who don't like this template to reder it pointless. The explicit mention of A7 is less vital, but the move is rediculous. do we have any other commonly used tool template that is a subpage? Do we have any normal template that is a subpage? Really now. DES 14:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read what he said about the redirects? You do not have to type the full template name, just use one of the redirects (yes, {{nn-bio}} won't stop working just because the template was moved, as long as the redirect is still there). However, having all the delete templates bunched together in the category is less confusing for admins cleaning the category. --cesarb 15:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps I was hasty, but then it seems to me that Blu Aardvark wasa hasty also. does he plan to do tbis with {{[[Template: e | e ]]}} that is really more instruction creep. First, it is much easier to type "{{db|Little or no context}}". Second, all of the CSD tags already say in the second paragraph that if "you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add that as an admin who handles CSD, the less templates adding to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, the better. Only {{nonsense}} and {{deleteagain}} are useful as extra templates, since they are very common; the rest can get {{deletebecause}} or {{db}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems like a handy tool for anyone on new page patrol, although I might have called it {{db-empty}} as being easier to remember.DES 14:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (no vote at this time). The reason I added the text the way that I did is that I hope that it will encourage people to expand the articles, and avoid deletion. In other words, I added the extra text for the potential benefit of regular non-admin editors who might stumble upon the article, and choose to expand it. If anyone can see any way the template can be improved, feel free. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd just like to state, I do understand the reasoning behind this nomination, and extra templates that clutter up the category can make things a bit confusing. The primary reason I created this template, as I said, was to hopefully encourage people to expand articles that meet speedy delete criteria, and avoid the deletions. But it does raise the issue that, if a template is created for one speedy deletion criteria, what would stop others from being created? If this were to happen, we'd certainly have a cluttered category. I don't really see this template as instruction creep, but I agree that it isn't really needed.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and rename). This is the equivalent of {{db| Article does not appear to contain sufficient information to warrant an article. If you can correct this, please do so and remove this notice.}}, which is not (in practice) going to be used. Don't bite the newbies. Septentrionalis 02:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote above, if "you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." is already in the second paragraph on all of the CSD tags. Adding "If you can correct this, please do so and remove this notice" is redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Tools aren't instruction creep, since no one is really required to use it, and it sure seems a lot easier than typing all that Septentrionalis wrote! --Titoxd 03:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme Delete. They should be using {{db}}. There is no need for a specialized version of that template. BlankVerse ∅ 09:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't see where I am instructed or even recommended to use this, so I don't see any creep. If the words on the screen are the same as when I type them out in full manually, what harm is done? -Splash 14:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have edited this to remove the redundant comment about removing the notice, so anyone who felt that was the major problem with this template might want to reconsider his or her vote. DES 19:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'd prefer that people use {{db|reason}} to provide a specific reason rather than using this template. JYolkowski // talk 01:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I renamed the template from template:db:a1 to template:deletebecause/empty to help clear some of the clutter from the category, and perhaps make it easier on the admins. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any instruction creep here. --malathion ^talk 01:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:QOTD

Apparently a template for an abortive Quote of the day project. If this was being organized by the folks at Wikiquote as a daily feature, I'd love to see it. As is, it should be deleted. I'll let someone else have the fun of taking Wikipedia:Quote of the day to WP:VFD. BlankVerse ∅ 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why was it speedy deleted? Nabla 19:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moved to Wiktionary

Delete as redundant to {{VFD}} and unused. --Dmcdevit�t 09:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - do we have one of these for each sister project? -Splash 23:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bordered

As meta templates go, this one is pretty egregious - it forces everything to be class="notice metadata" id="cleanup" in addition to the stylistic formatting, which really should be handled in css instead of a template. I've reverted it out of Template:spoiler and Template:endspoiler and pre-emptively substed it in Template:stub, Template:dynamic list, and Template:OntarioSH. Leaving it in the latter three at all was against my better judgement. —Cryptic (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as said, CSS should handle this and not meta-templates. violet/riga (t) 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe it is easier to memorize how to put a template in an article rather than the base code for bordered notices. --SuperDude 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. For starters, naming a template after what it does graphically is a poor idea. Having a template that does little other than put a border around another piece of text has little value. Applying an XHTML ID to such a generic template is bound to cause validation problems, since IDs (naturally) are intended to be unique in a page. You might be able to fix some of the problems, but I suspect that fixing them will remove essentially any value the template might have had. —HorsePunchKid→龜 17:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. This is better done via CSS. -Splash 23:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stub-base

Redundant to Template:Metastub. —Cryptic (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme Delete. Superfluous. BlankVerse ∅ 12:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This should probably be redirected to the Stub-sorting WikiProject folks at WP:SFD. BlankVerse ∅ 10:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to it's redundant brother. Sometimes, duplication on Wikipedia can occur therefore redirecting it can make more sense. --SuperDude 15:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to WP:SFD replace tag with {{Sfd-t}}. ∞Who?¿? 11:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirectbug

And associated category Category:Redirectbug.

I can't figure out why this exists. It is only used on one page, and so I think subst'ing it in should be sufficient. There's no point to a template and creating a category for this. --Dmcdevit�t 00:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Subst:, delete...I can't figure this out either! -Splash 23:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is an (extremely minor) example of WP:POINT. Yes, categories can't be the subjects of redirects. It's apparently a known bug, and might even be fixed in the current (not stable) build of MediaWiki, if I'm reading that bug page right. There's no reason to make a category page about it. Delete. --Quuxplusone 22:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No such bug. Comment By linking to categories with a lead-in colon, redirects work, although there are a few errors in the category display. Example. It works like this: #REDIRECT [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's those "few errors in the category display" that are the problem for shortcuts like CAT:CSD (which, being a shortcut, like the WP:WP shortcuts, is far less useful at Wikipedia:CAT:CSD than at its original location, by the way). Uncle G 03:39:22, 2005-07-29 (UTC)
    • Ah, that is a good point. If you simply click on the "category" tab after being redirected to such a page, though, it fixes it right up. But not everyone knows that, so I guess this works. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, even though it is currently only used on one page, the problem it describes is potentially relevant to other pages in the future. If/When a fixed version of wikimedia is implemented then it can be deleted of course, but not before. As any mathematician will tell you, having a set with only one member can be perfectly meaningfull :). Thue | talk 09:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thue. This works as a soft redirect, as the regular redirect doesn't work quite as it should. Apparently, redirects to categories are treated as if they were in the main namespace, and so the category contents are not listed. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mathematics

This template not linked from any article. The templates {quantity}, {change}, {space} and {structure} mentioned in this template are themselves up for deletion below, it it seems they are going to be deleted. In addition, this template joins topics not having anything in common besides the fact that they are math. As such,

• Delete Oleg Alexandrov 04:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two of the four templates used by this one have already been deleted. Add to that that this template isn't used anywhere, and... yeah. Make it go bye-bye. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

Template:Gay

Strange anon creation. Kill it. Dragons flight 08:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as pointless and... weird... Garrett^Talk 08:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN This template is a weird one; I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. --JB Adder | Talk 08:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense and we will all be happy to see it go. Don't BJAODN. BlankVerse ∅ 12:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Blam this sucker. Makes me ungay to see something as meaningless as this here. ? 25 ^ring-a-ding 17:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC) ?[reply]
• Speedy delete and remove the highly contentious Category:Gay icons as well. Hall Monitor 17:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have speedily deleted it as patent nonsense. Note that another version of a template with the same name had been deleted in February through tfd. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademicBoosterism

Created as a joke, being used in lieu of discussion. - Nunh-huh 23:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hopeless. Also send the image to IFD after deletion of the template please. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Created as a joke? It's a real problem. The picture may be bland, but that should be an incentive to improve the article so the template goes away. (That was a joke.) Anville 00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This might be a problem, but I think it is merely a special case of non-NPOV issues (a strain of POV Disease, if you will). Courtland 01:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Anville. The template raises a good point. 69.17.20.106 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Points are to be raised on talk pages, not templates. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per Courtland. Just another synonym for NPOV, and this template is more likely to discourage productive discussion than encourage it. Having a somewhat inflammatory name for a template that is intended to help resolve NPOV disputes is just silly. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

We have a science-fiction stub which is more specific than the general stub, and we have a Star Trek stub which is more specific still. What's wrong with a slightly more specific version of the NPOV banner? Anville 13:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment again. I think I was fairly clear about my concern. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it does not relate to any part of Wikipedia policy that is not already covered by the various NPOV templates, and it has a design that is pretty unpleasant. -Splash 17:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the article is not NPOV, tag it as such. This just lends itself to edit wars around the Harvard-Yale football game, for example.--SarekOfVulcan 19:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit, Keep, Make More. I agree with Courtland and others that this is a strain of POV disease, but I disagree that this is a reason for killing the template. {{NPOV}} and similar templates are warnings to the reader that something may be wrong with the article, however most of these templates do little to explain what the problem is. If we assume that many people read encyclopedia articles about subjects with which they are unfamiliar, then a naive reader may have no way of recognizing what the problem actually is. Because of this I would advocate the creation of either a number of general classes of NPOV templates to identify specific types of problems (of which this could be one), and/or the creation of a template {{POV-because}}, which could take a parameter for giving an explanation of what the POV problem is. I do think however, that all of the NPOV type templates need to conform to a similar style, and as such this would need to be redesigned without the ugly graphic and with a link to NPOV. Dragons flight 20:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I don't have any specific problem with expanding the selection of POV indicators, as long as it is done in such a way that they are visually consistent, non-invasive, and non-inflammatory. This particular one fails each of those criteria but could certainly be cleaned up to conform. —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The nature of how an article has strayed into non-NPOV should be described in gory detail (complete with blood stains from the debates) in the talk-space. True, the underlying reasons for putting the general non-NPOV template on are not obvious to the casual reader, but they should be clear to the reader who reads the article deeply and who takes the talk-space as part of the clarification of the article's treatment of the topic. Regards, Courtland 23:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created {{POV-because|Some Reason}} for the purposes of having an NPOV template that can note for the benefit of the reader what the issue in question is. I also added it to the page of dispute message templates. If people don't like this, well then, there is always TFD, but I think this fills an important and valuable niche given that the issues in dispute are often not obvious to the reader. The instructions on the template's talk page still say that the issue should always be explained in detail on talk. Dragons flight 21:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Improve and keep. Changed vote, see below Yes, it's too big, it's too intrusive. Nunh-huh's comment that it's been used in lieu of discussion is fair. Academic boosterism is, however, a real problem, because it spreads from article to article and keeps reinfecting articles. Every few months I'll see a fresh crop of six paragraphs about "prestige" or U. S. News rankings sprouting up somewhere, and the justification given is always that some other school has done it, and theirs is much worse. The reason why I think it might be appropriate to use this in place of a standard NPOV is that I believe the warning should be weaker than the NPOV warning. Academic boosterism usually does not mean that the article is factually inaccurate. It's more a question of vanity, not bias. Taste, not accuracy. I, for one, want to be able to read about my alma mater without having a bunch of cardinal and gray butt feathers waved in my face, and I believe most other readers feel the same way. Other encyclopedias can talk about colleges without sounding like the admissions department, why can't we? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this template will assist in producing such an article how? It was used to label about ten successive college articles - none of them with any particular issues regarding boosterism-- in a flurry of vandalism, and none of them with any notation on the accompanying talk page. Why should we make that easy? - Nunh-huh 22:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I know. Been brooding about that. Take a look at this proposal: User:Dpbsmith/Boosterdampers.
  • Comment. First off, :) the way you (User:Dpbsmith) put things made me laugh. Thanks. I hadn't thought on the notion of a weaker version of non-NPOV warnings, but I can see your point. There was a discussion of "community pride" in some deletion-related debate a while ago and this relates to it in an indirect way; there is no reason for the pride of an author with regard to a topic to compromise the tone or factual accuracy of the treatment in the case of social organizations and institutions .. it is that pride among members that keeps such things in existence and leads them to grow, and to talk about them. I'll have to think some more on that and consider my vote in the context of your comments ... Courtland 23:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • As I've said elsewhere, this is a matter for a style guide, for reasoned discussion, or for collaborative editing. Applying a disparaging label to someone's enthusiasm for their school, and smashing that label in their face by plastering a template on the article they've contributed to does not seem like a step toward a solution to me. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nunh-huh has convinced me. (I hate it when that happens.) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete!. Redundant with {{NPOV}}. Unnecesary, unneeded. BlankVerse ∅ 13:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this is a real problem, and as the casual reader cannot be expected to go through everything that's written on the talk page just so that they can be able to read an encyclopedia article without having to doubt everything that's said there. - ulayiti (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So all articles without the template are guaranteed not to have the problem?! Er no! The person who reads an article with the problem should fix it, not add a template. Template like this are a disease affecting the quality of articles of Wikipedia and should be deleted as fast as procedure allows. Pcb21| Pete 16:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say that. It's just that the {{NPOV}} template is effectively a way of saying that 'there's something wrong with this article, but we're not gonna tell you what it is', and, as such, discourages casual users from reading and/or believing what's written in the articles. If there's no template, people will tend to believe it. If there's a template that says exactly what's wrong with the article, people might believe everything else in the article. But if the template is vague like {{NPOV}}, they won't bother. And what comes to your argument that 'The person who reads an article with the problem should fix it, not add a template', then why do we have cleanup templates in the first place? Shouldn't anyone who sees problems in articles automatically fix them within the next five seconds? - ulayiti (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "there's something wrong with this article, but we're not gonna tell you what it is" — The NPOV template does specifically direct the reader to the talk page for more information about what's wrong with the article. This seems like a very good solution to me. If you are seeing instances of that template with no relevant discussion, perhaps you should remove the template. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--Eloquence* 02:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not the way to deal with academic boosterism (or "school spirit" as we used to call it). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant with other NPOV templates. ∞Who?¿? 12:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

Template:Song infobox

There's another one called Template:Single infobox already used on quite a few articles. So delete. -- pmam21^talk_articles 02:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, until migration is complete, no? It seems to be on quite a few articles. -Splash 17:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but it's only used in 4 articles (3 Beatles songs, 1 Rolling Stones). Migration will be really quick. If you're confused, Template:Single infobox is the on used alot, not the Song infobox.
• Keep until either one template is used or a third is created from a merger. Infoboxes are complicated and useful beasts in general because they encourage the organization of (in many cases) mundane information, allowing the article text to tell a unique story about the topic. The deletion of one just because there is a competing one with overlapping scope isn't in the best interests of Wikipedia. Courtland 00:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Similar comment to as above. Of course, templates are good. Anyway, the one up for deletion (Song infobox) is only in 4 articles. It will be quick. -- pmam21^talk_articles 11:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. These looks like an issue that should be handled by the participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, instead of here at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 14:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's a pretty good idea, a good precedent to start perhaps. Courtland 23:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm the original author of the template, and I see here that Template:Single infobox is pretty much the same and it was created earlier, so it should be the one that stays. If I had known that other one existed, I wouldn't have created Template:Song infobox. --Arcadian 16:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for coming forward to say that, Arcadian. :) Courtland 23:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep My reasoning being, we have some songs that weren't released as singles where this box would work. Such as... pretty much every Beatles song article we have that wasn't released as a single. Most are stubs and this box would improve them. Redwolf24 21:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

Template:Asiamiles

This seems very similar to the WorldPerks template, which reached a consensus of categorize and delete. The same should be done with this. Dbinder 16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless there's a consensus to delete all airline alliance and loyalty programme templates. — Instantnood 12:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • No one said anything about deleting alliance templates. I do believe all frequent flyer program templates should be deleted though. Dbinder 13:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there more loyalty programme templates around? As for the airline alliance templates, these are different in that an airline is only a member of 1 so you do not have issues with multiple templates. Vegaswikian 23:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or general vote to forbid all nav templates, this one is OK. Stefan 14:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is this one OK when the WorldPerks one wasn't? There isn't much of a difference. Dbinder 15:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the reasons on the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Worldperks. Most of the existing nav templates are limited in how many will appear. This class of templates can mean that there are 20 or 30 templates in an article, I don't believe that is the intention of using templates. Not only would that number make navigation more difficult but it would make it more difficult to find information. In any case, if you check Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines it says these should be articles if required. Oh, and add another 10-20 templates if you then decide to add templates for airport lounges since they will have the same problem. And then we can do it for code shares. Vegaswikian 18:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can see a use for templates for programs which are native to multiple airlines or other businesses, such as Miles & More (shared by Lufthansa, Austrian Airlines, LOT Polish, etc.) or GoldPoints (Radisson Hotels, TGI Friday's). Only Cathay seems to be native to Asia Miles. Second, Asia Miles is a program, not an alliance; half the partners listed have nothing more to do with each other than with partners Citigroup, Nautica, or the Promenade Restaurant in Kowloon. Third, the practical problem of listing mere partners should be self-evident: Alaska Airlines would have 14 airline templates alone. Hertz, which probably awards more Asia Miles than Royal Brunei, would have 68. - choster 23:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP:RM

I'm not sure I understand the point of this template. It's no less simple than the current procedure at WP:RM, has an obscure name and isn't documented anywhere. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hmm. I've tested the template, and it's fairly simple to use. It's a minor shortcut for the current procedure is all. However, it doesn't seem too widely used, unless people are using subst. It's a tough call, but I do think that some documentation somewhere is in order. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've added instructions to the TALK page for WP:RM 132.205.94.174 22:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, it's a nice shortcut, and according to the Wikipedia talk:Requested moves page, it's supposed to be used with subst. People forget to place the TALK page onto the listings as it is at WP:RM, so you can't instantly give an opinion right now. 132.205.44.43 14:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Be bold and redirect it to template:move. Dunc|☺ 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not equivalent to {{move}}. That template is added to talk pages, this is meant to simplify entering move requests on WP:RM.
• Keep. Harmless. If people use it, then okay, if not, then also okay. Since it should be used with subst: obviously it is fairly impossible to know whether or not people are using it. Dragons flight 15:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the instructions over at WP:RM are quite clear and this template is redundant with them. -Splash 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and recommend adding a mention of it WP:RM if kept. -Splash 21:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? It is a template that aids one in following those directions, how is that redundant? Dragons flight 21:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Because the instructions say to use {{move}}. -Splash 21:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you misunderstand. The instructions also say to add:

        * [[Talk:page to be moved]] – [[page to be moved]] → [[new name]] – {reason for move} — ~~~~

      • to the WP:RM page, which is the effect of this template. Hence it is a shortcut in properly formatting a move request on the RM page. Dragons flight 21:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, I see. Sorry. Vote changed. This template should be mentioned on WP:RM. -Splash 21:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have added documentation on the talk page and added a reference on WP:RM. HTH HAND �Phil | Talk 07:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per 132.205.44.43. � Bcat ^{(talk � email)} 00:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]