Biocrawler:Templates for deletion

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

Deletion Tools

Articles {{vfd}} Templates {{tfd}} Images {{ifd}} Categories {{cfd}} {{cfr}} Stub types {{sfd-t}} {{sfd-c}} Copyvios {{copyvio}} Undeletion Mergers {{merge}} {{mergefrom}} {{mergeto}} {{mergedisputed}} Redirects {{rfd}} Page moves {{move}} Speedy {{delete}} {{db}} Patent {{nonsense}} Unfree images {{pui}} {{PUIdisputed}} {{nonfreedelete}} {{no source}} {{unknown}} {{Move to Wiktionary}} {{Move to Wikisource}} {{Move to Wikibooks}} {{Move to Wikibooks Cookbook}} {{Move to Wikiquote}} Deletion policy Deletion log Deletion watchlist (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Template%3ADeletiontools) | . (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Deletiontools&action=edit)

Click here for an explanation of how this page works, as well as instructions on nominating a template for deletion.

On this page, deletion of templates (pages in the Template namespace) is discussed. Templates are used to insert common blocks of text into multiple pages, for standardization.

• For guidelines on acceptable templated text messages, see Biocrawler:Template namespace.
• For guidelines on acceptable article series or navigation boxes, see Biocrawler:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

Templates that are nominated for deletion are discussed and voted on, preferably to reach consensus. Like WP:VfD, this forum is more about discussion than about voting, so please tell us why you vote in a certain way so that you may convince others. Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion if either a general consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised. Such templates are then either unlisted and kept, or listed at the bottom for deprecation and deletion.

Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Biocrawler:Templates for deletion/Log, and are located at /Log/Deleted and /Log/Not deleted.

Contents

1 Listings 1.1 June 23 1.1.1 Template:Artportal 1.2 June 22 1.2.1 Template:N, Template:Y, Template:No and Template:Yes 1.2.2 Template:Transwiki 1.2.3 Template:TOCembed 1.2.4 Template:Spoiler-about 1.2.5 Template:BJAODN 1.3 June 21 1.3.1 Template:notdeletebecause 1.3.2 Template:Spoiler-other 1.3.3 Template:wikitravelbyname 1.3.4 Template:BeingVandalized 1.4 June 20 1.4.1 Template:PD-IndiaGov 1.4.2 Template:Cfru 1.4.3 Template:Exploding animals 1.4.4 Template:Current-now-aniv & Template:Current-now 1.5 June 19 1.5.1 Template:Anarchism2 1.5.2 Template:Slashdot 1.5.3 Template:Guideline1 1.6 June 18 1.6.1 Template:Eric42TestPages 1.6.2 Template:Hurricaneivanlatestadvisory 1.6.3 Template:ChattFM 1.7 June 17 1.7.1 Template:Multispoiler 1.7.2 Template:Msh 1.7.3 Template:Whedon-spoiler 1.7.4 Template:Ship table and associated sub-tables 1.7.5 Template:Move-To-Memory-Alpha 1.7.6 Template:Fuzzy actor 1.7.7 Template:Recycling 1.7.8 Template:Personal 1.7.9 Template:(disambiguation) 1.7.10 Template:WiktionaryWord 2 Holding Cell 2.1 To orphan 2.2 To convert to category 2.3 Ready to delete 3 Listings to log

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

June 23

Template:Artportal

Redundant with {{portalpar}} which accepts one parameter and is thus much more versatile. Do we really want a separate portal template for each portal? --MarSch 11:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 22

Template:N, Template:Y, Template:No and Template:Yes

More templates to add a cutish picture to a vote; see below for the discussion about Template:Support and others. Radiant_>|< 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - as I mentioned in the vote below, they are used in articles, not votes (look at the "What links here" for each ([1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:N), [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Y), [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:No), [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Yes)). If people start using them in votes, then I'll change my mind. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Terrible for votes, but wonderful for things like comparison tables. --W(t) 10:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep but don't dare use them for voting. smoddy 10:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Template:No and Template:Yes, but please don't use them for your opinions in any of the Biocrawler surveys (and for anyone considering such action, look at the strong opinions against Template:Support and Template:Oppose expressed below and consider the possibility that your vote might disappear if someone blanks the template—not that I am advocating such action). On the other hand, the almost unused redirects Template:N, and Template:Y should be deleted in my opinion. BlankVerse ∅ 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the reason cited above. —Lifeisunfair 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Radiant — I appreciate the diligence with which you round up potentially inappropriate templates, but can you please make a greater effort to understand their intended applications before proposing their deletion? Why would you assume that these templates were for use in voting, without even bothering to check? And why haven't you struck that claim? —Lifeisunfair 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Transwiki

This template is unused, since it is redundant with {{move to Wiktionary}}, {{move to Wikisource}}, etc. It was only used on a few old pages specifying other projects, so I've cleaned out the category (Category:Biocrawler articles to be transwikied) using the specific templates. This is unnecessary and creates more work. --Dmcdevit 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:TOCembed

This produces a horrible-looking TOC on the left-hand side of the page. All pages ought to follow the same format, but this ruins the look of about 4 articles. Dunc|☺ 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless somebody can come up with a better format. The left-floating box isn't nice. Joe D (t) 16:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The discussion at Biocrawler talk:Section convinces me that thsi is a good ides in some cases. When the TOC is long, the default format introduces a lot of undesireable whitespace. Short TOCs, Wide TODs and Long but not Wide TOCs should not be handled in the same way. DES 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unless a viable alternative is offered. I used this template to diffuse an Anon user who was starting to crossover to a vandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#false_claims_of_vandalism). He raised the valid point that the brief intro to the article, followed by a lengthy ToC, pushed needed mention of criticisms "below the fold" of the front page. It ain't pretty, but it works.--ghost 17:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The intelligent design article is quite a mess as I view it. Section 1 (ID in summary) is squeezed in a narrow right margin with a "Creationism" template sitting on top of it, making it impossible for me to read it.--Nabla 04:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless. Radiant_>|< 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because it has its uses, though Template:TOCright is usually the preferred template for floating TOCs. Looking at intelligent design, I think it is not appropriate in that case simply because of the right floating box next to it. In previous discussion it has been suggested that TOCs only float when other boxes are not floating at the same place in the document. It also sounds like the conflict on that article has more to do with developing a good summary than TOC placement. —Mike (creator of both templates) 08:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I tried Template:TOCright, and it works well. Therefore, I remove my objections for deleteing Template:TOCembed. However, if this is done, please update the TOC instruction pages, as I never saw a reference to TOCright, and I looked.--ghost 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler-about

I understand the need of Template:Spoiler-other below, but this one claims that "the article contains spoilers about its subject" and is therefore redundant with the more vanilla Template:Spoiler. Radiant_>|< 08:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Radiant. This template is redundant. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional delete, Template:Spoiler-about and Template:Spoiler-other are redundant with each other. We don't need two templates to describe what spoilers it contains. At the moment I think Spoiler-other is more useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to reassess the template. I personally favor retaining both {{Spoiler-about}} and {{Spoiler-other}}, but if we were to keep only one, it should be {{Spoiler-about}}. It contains less information (rendering it less useful in situations to which {{Spoiler-other}} applies), but the information that it does contain is applicable. Conversely, {{Spoiler-other}} contains additional information that renders it inapplicable to any situation in which the spoiler warning doesn't pertain to the article's title (as demonstrated below). —Lifeisunfair 12:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not necessary. Redirect back to template:spoiler. Dunc|☺ 09:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the template, because it does not claim that "the article contains spoilers about its subject" (unless someone decides to utilize it in this manner, which isn't its intended application). The "subject" to which I refer in my example is that of the spoiler, not the title of the article. This is potentially useful in two types of situation that I've observed.

1. An article or section can contain spoilers pertaining to a topic that while not unrelated, is not explicitly contained within the title. For example, an actor's/director's/producer's article (or a section thereof) might mention key plot details of one or more theatrical/television productions. The message might read:

Spoiler warning: This article or section contains plot/ending details of "Movie X" and "Movie Y."

2. A particular section can contain spoilers for a specific area of the article's subject, such as a television season. (This is especially significant when a current television series is further along in some countries than in others.) The message might read:

Spoiler warning: This article or section contains plot/ending details of season 3.

And once again, the spoiler warning page has encouraged the creation of custom spoiler warnings for almost a year. If you disagree with this guideline, you should propose its abolishment (as opposed to the abolishment of templates created in accordance with said guideline). And of course, in authoring this template and {{Spoiler-other}}, I seek to reduce or eliminate the need for further custom spoiler templates. —Lifeisunfair 09:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, in that case it's redundant with the more generic Template:Spoiler-about. I wholeheartedly agree with reducing the need for custom spoiler templates, and like I said I find spoiler-about very useful, but I can't see this one as anything else than redundant. As a side point, WP:SW claims you should design your own If these general purpose templates are not suitable for the particular article you are working on. And what we're debating here is precisely that issue - whether or not the general templates are suitable. Radiant_>|< 10:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I obviously disagree with your assessment. The {{Spoiler-other}} template (which I assume you meant to reference above) is far less generic than {{Spoiler-about}}, because the former specifies that the article contains spoilers pertaining to its title. Applying {{Spoiler-other}} to the two examples cited above, you'll see that it's entirely inappropriate:

Spoiler warning: In addition to George Lucas, this article contains plot/ending details of THX 1138 and American Graffiti.

The article doesn't contain spoilers about George Lucas.

Spoiler warning: In addition to The X-Files, this article contains plot/ending details of season 3.

Season 3 is part of the series, not an additional entity.

Do you see how the templates have disparate applications? —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep, unless somebody's changed the template, it doesn't say that it contains spoilers about its subject, but rather has a parameter where you can put what the spoiler is. I can definitely see this being useful in some places. For example, in an article about a director, I may want to talk about one of his movies. This template would allow me to specify which movie I'm going to discuss, while at the same time making it clear that I'm not going to "spoil" something about the director himself (okay, not a good example, but I'm sure you get my point). This template allows people to be more specific, and is definitely not redundant. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You described my intended application perfectly. With no offense intended toward anyone, it's only fair to analyze a template's basic structure before proposing its deletion. With an accurate understanding of {{Spoiler-about}}, Radiant might still have nominated it for deletion, but wouldn't have misled others into believing that it was set up in a totally different format than it actually is. (I would appreciate if you'd strike your original description, Radiant.) —Lifeisunfair 12:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Is there any reason to not clearup this confusion and merge the lot of them into a single template This article contains plot details or ending details about //fill in the blank//? People are likely to use the wrong template if there are three or more. {{sofixit}}. Radiant_>|< 11:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason to have separate templates: they serve different purposes. There isn't always a need to specify the nature of a spoiler, but sometimes there is. Why are you so eager to lump these situations together? I believe that the spoiler template selection instructions (which are linked from the three spoiler templates in question) are clear, but you're welcome to improve them. We shouldn't weaken the encyclopedia's content simply to make things marginally easier for a few people. —Lifeisunfair 12:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If we had to retain only one of the three spoiler templates, it should probably be this one, or a slight modification of this one (to make the argument optional). However i think that retaining all three (Template:Spoiler, Template:Spoiler-other, and Template:Spoiler-about) is the better course -- they are useful in different circumstances. Spoiler is good for the most common case, when the spoiler is about the subject of the article and no other info is needed. Spoiler-about is useful when the spoiler is about something other than (or not exactly the same as) the article subject or when it is about multiple subjects. Spoiler-other is useful when the spoiler deals with both the article subject and another subject. By they way, the use of one or another of these templates ought to repace any more specific custom spoiler warning, such as the spoiler-whedon or any specialized ones for other fictional universes. DES 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! You did a much better job of summarizing the templates' intended applications than I've been able to. —Lifeisunfair 14:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - We only need one simple spoiler notice. Why make things complicated? -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion? Is this vote based upon your opinion (implied elsewhere) that we shouldn't even be wasting our "effort" on spoiler warnings? —Lifeisunfair 16:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Cburnett 22:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: as useful as, or more useful than, Template:Spoiler-other. -Sean Curtin 23:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per Template:Spoiler-other discussion. - Sikon 08:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Persuaded by the above explanation. Conditional that they're not used when the spoiler is describing the same subject as the page name. Joe D (t) 13:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:BJAODN

Support: Articles are voted into BJAODN by vfd, not "candidates for BJAODN"You (Talk) 01:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, if a speedy is BJAODN-worthy, just add it in yourself. We don't need another layer of bureaucracy for this. BJAODN is informal enough to just let people put stuff in themselves. Besides, BJAODN shouldn't be seen as a place where articles are moved, it's more of an archive of deleted content. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This is merely another version of CSD similar to the {{nonsense}} tag. The "BJAODN" notice is a nonbinding recommendation to place it in BJAODN before speedily deleting.24.54.208.177 01:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As one of the people who handle CSD, the less templates adding to the category, the better. Only {{nonsense}} and {{deleteagain}} are useful as extra templates, since they are very common; the rest can get {{deletebecause}}. --cesarb 01:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Instruction creep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per anon. Who says you need to act on it? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Radiant_>|< 10:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme Delete. If the article meets the speedy delete criteria, but is funny enough to also copy to WP:BJAODN, then the person should go ahead and copy it, rather than being lazy and leaving the task to someone else. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, BJAODN it yourself if you must. --W(t) 01:19, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC) (vote restored after I deleted it myself by accident) --W(t)

[edit]

June 21

[edit]

Template:notdeletebecause

Nonsense. --W(t) 23:24, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• That's the point. Besides, if you guys delete this template, would you mind copying the exact wording and pasting it in all spaces where the template currently appears? Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You can go ahead and do that using subst:, since the only other place this seems to appear is your userpage. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy & delete, or subst it depending on what the creator prefers. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as it degrades into nonsense. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Subst: and delete, and if Rickyrab wants it as a subpage, then also userfy it. BlankVerse ∅ 13:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Utter nonsense --michael180 14:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Heavy-handed failure to be funny. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Spoiler-other

Please, just one {{Spoiler}} template to rule them all. -- Netoholic @ 20:58, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. Did you continue reading the Whedon-spoiler discussion after casting your vote? The {{Spoiler}} template doesn't allow users to warn readers that an article contains spoilers pertaining to a subject other than the titular one. Furthermore, the spoiler warning page (linked to from the {{Spoiler}} template) has contained the following instruction since July 7, 2004: "If this general purpose template is not suitable for the particular article you are working on, feel free to custom-design your own warning, but please link back to this page." —Lifeisunfair 21:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Biocrawler already has a Content disclaimer, and we're already doing readers a favor giving a "heads-up" that a page has spoilers. I doubt seriously that anyone reading a page with spoilers expects the spoilers to relate only to the page title. Look, if you want to re-write Template:Spoiler, then please propose a wording which covers your concerns, but I think the current text of it is sufficient. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    • Biocrawler is an encyclopedia, but it also is an Internet site. As such, it's our responsibility to maintain the level of etiquette to which Internet users are accustomed. I strongly disagree with your assessment of spoiler warning interpretation; lacking notice to the contrary, I would expect a spoiler warning to apply strictly to the article's titular subject. And as I mentioned earlier, the spoiler warning page has encouraged the creation of custom spoiler warnings for almost a year. If you disagree with this guideline, I suggest that you propose a wording that covers your concerns. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not saying we should abandon spoiler warnings. I am saying that we only need one, generic warning to do that task. We don't need anything more complex than the existing warning notice. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
        • I disagree. The situation is not infrequently more complex than the basic Template:spoiler deals well with. I agreee that endless specailized spoilers are a mistake, but we now have three templates that between them seem to handle all the reasonable cases. Surely there must be clear usage instructions at each that describe how to use them, and when to use one of the others instead. Surely there eill ocasional be confusion, but that applies to so much of wikipedia. What is so horrid to you about havign these threee templates -- not an endless number, but three instead of only one? Where is it written in stoen that one, and that one the most basic possible, is all we "need". DES 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I just read through the Whedon-spoiler discussion referenced, and I have to agree, this one looks potentially useful. --JohnDBuell | Talk 22:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Based on the discussion below, this looks suitably flexible and useful. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Where an article includes spoilers for things not obvious from its title, this is a highly desireable way to let people know about it. Indeed, if you must have only one template, use only this one, so modified that if the "other" parameter is left blank, it reverts to something like the current "spoiler" template. DES 22:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Great, so propose this change on Template talk:Spoiler. I don't really care, so long as we only have one spoiler template, because Biocrawler's "responsibilities" with regards to spoiler warnings just isn't worth the effort. -- Netoholic @ 00:16, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    • I am fine with two templates, and the work to convert the existing uses of the existing spoiler template is, i suspect, non-trivial. if you think it is so vital that there be only one template, propose the change yourself, and do the work of conversion. No one else here seems to think that having two templates is so horrid. It would be a good idea if each template's documentation referenced the other, and explained how and when to use it, and if this template survives this process I might well do that. DES 00:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Both templates (and another that I created, which I assume will be nominated for deletion soon) link to the spoiler warning page, which provides the type of instructions that you describe. The third template — {{Spoiler-about}} — is an expanded version of {{Spoiler}} (particularly useful in an article or section that contains spoilers on a single topic that isn't clear from the title). If any template were to replace (rather than supplement) the current {{Spoiler}} template, it should be that one. (While its additional information usually isn't needed, it never is inappropriate, and could be rendered optional by a more knowledgeable template author than I.) But would this be worth the effort? Perhaps, but a trio of templates (two of which actively discourage the creation of further templates) seems entirely manageable to me. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Assuming that each serves a unique purpose, what harm results from having more than one spoiler template? No one is asking you to expend any "effort." —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm not sure I'm big on having spoiler tags, but if we're going to have those this is a logical extension. --W(t) 01:20, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Keep. Provides context that Template:Spoiler is incapable of handling. -Sean Curtin 04:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sean's reasoning. The regular spoiler template can't handle it if the argument for the other subject isn't used. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this one obviates the need for specific spoilers such as tolkien-spoiler and buffy-spoiler. Radiant_>|< 10:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, I didn't even know this template existed when I was talking about the whedon-spoiler template, or else I would've referred to it :$. The same points that were brought up in the discussion for whedon-spoiler apply here. This template is a version that will work for many different spoilers rather than only whedon productions, and also allows people to be much more specific. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that this was actually created in response to the debate over the whedon-spoiler template; at any rate it is clear from the history that it was creatd after that debate had started. DES 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I created the template directly in response to the {{whedon-spoiler}} discussion (based upon another user's suggestion). —Lifeisunfair 14:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - {{Spoiler}} and {{Spoiler-about}} are all we need. - Omegatron 18:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Whedon-spoiler discussion. Shem^(talk) 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A useful template. - Sikon 08:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• del, unused and I see no use for this template that spoiler-about cannot handle --MarSch 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:wikitravelbyname

Duplicate of Template:wikitravelpar (though the TFD'd is older) except wikitravelpar follows the format of the other templates of similar name: Template:wikisourcepar, Template:wiktionarypar, Template:wikiquotepar. Cburnett 16:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (Comment: I don't think there's any debate. See talk pages.) --Quuxplusone 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this one, as it follows the convention for a link to an external project. I'd support deleting template:wikitravel and template:wikitravelpar, as they are links to external sites masquerading as Wikimedia Foundation sister projects link boxes. Gentgeen 17:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, that's interesting, I was under the impression that WikiTravel was a sister project, but in fact it is not. In that case we should probably remove such things as the 'transwiki to wikitravel' process, et al. Also, keep per Gentgeen, and delete the other two. Radiant_>|< 19:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The other two are now text links again, an anon had turned them into boxes early this morning. Joe D (t) 19:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And wikitravelbyname has been removed from use in favor of wikitravelpar... Cburnett 20:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, delete. (Gentgeen's and Radiant's objections were to the former content of the template, but the reason it's listed here is because it's a duplicate of an existing, better-named template.)
  • And I'm too lazy to find who made this vote. :) Cburnett 06:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• del historical fork --MarSch 13:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:BeingVandalized

Joke template, unfortunately not good enough for BJAODN. Delete. --cesarb 01:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Edit summary for its creation reads "(A little bit of silliness for the (too-serious) Biocrawler.)". Delete. Radiant_>|< 11:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just about as grotesque as it gets? User:Phils/sig 13:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, joke template. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I disagree on the hilarity, so I copied it to BJAODN. --MikeJ9919 19:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since I doubt vandals would have the courtesy to use it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 20

[edit]

Template:PD-IndiaGov

This is not true. See User talk:DuKot#India images and [5] (http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railway/disclaimer.htm). --SPUI (talk) 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Factually incorrect disclaimer. Dragons flight 22:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with the above. Misleading. pamri 17:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biocrawler:Templates_for_deletion&diff=15578744&oldid=15578707)
• Delete. Their gov'nt holds copyright. Shem^(talk) 18:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is incorrect, and there is already a correct PD tag for India in place. David Newton 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Cfru

Fork of Template:Cfr with an extra parameter used for 'umbrella' nominations. Not actually in use. Radiant_>|< 09:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Kbdank71 16:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is useful for umbrella nominations, but it's not advertised on WP:CFD. Not many people actually knows they should use this template for such nominations. — Instantnood 15:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should they? (meta:instruction creep - it's a complication of process that serves no real need). Radiant_>|< 10:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Question: What's an "umbrella nomination"? — Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • I'd say Sebastian has just proven my point that this is confusing :).
  • It refers to nominating several related cats at the same time. Radiant_>|< 08:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, it gives people the opportunity to save other people some time searching for the nomination. No harm done if not always used, thus no instruction creep. --MarSch 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Exploding animals

Redundant with Category:Exploding animals, and it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical. Radiant_>|< 09:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Keep and rename. Should be Template:Exploding animals, since birds and toads aren't mammals. --MarkSweep 14:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done, but I'm voting delete. This template is redundant. Gemberling 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I would have voted delete for almost any other template like this, but the topic of exploding animals is so absurd and unusual, it warrants having a template to give it that much extra attention. It has been a benefit to me in the past, and I'm sure that it would be a benefit to other readers. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Frazzydee. --Randy Johnston 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep quite a good template, unusual and interesting. Good to display: a category doesn't display the different articles on the exploding animal pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep...it's just too hilarious. --MikeJ9919 07:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Human interest" to its extreme. Shem^(talk) 09:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - kaboom! Alphax ^τεχ 12:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; it doesn't take up much room (unlike some other templates I've seen) and it's both funny and informative. A2Kafir 13:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although it is really funny, we only need the category. (The only advantage of the template is the thumbnail of the exploding whale, which is hard to see anyway.) Wikiacc (talk) 18:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It nice to see a little levity in the Biocrawler that is also informative and not an immediate candidate for BJAODN. BlankVerse ∅ 18:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it certainly is useful to list the anim,als that can explode, maybe spontaneouisly, which is potentially useful--Sstabeler 18:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That's what categories are for. --Conti|✉ 22:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for easy navigation. What's next deleting templates that interlink Sherlock Holmes novels or amino acids? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — it's really interesting to browse through all such articles. — Pt _(T) 17:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The reasons keepers give are reasons to spice up category display in general, not a reason to duplicate categories with templates. (If it were structured like #Template:Slashdot I'd vote "keep".) — Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• delete (is only stupid)--MartinS 10:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete AN 12:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Current-now-aniv & Template:Current-now

Added to two articles which deal with events taking place on June 19. Little apparent purpose.--Pharos 05:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both. Can't these poorly worded, confusingly named messes be speedy deleted? BlankVerse ∅ 06:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd like to hear from the creator about his/her intentions, since these have only existed for 7 hours. How are you guys searching for these things that you are so frequently pulling in just created templates? Dragons flight 06:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, don't make template forks. As to Dragon's question - if they're used or linked to some place we frequent, we just happen to run into them. At least that's what I do. Radiant_>|< 07:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  That wouldn't seem to explain a case like {{Guideline1}} where my understanding was that it hadn't yet been used on any pages. Am I mistaken about that? Dragons flight 07:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • It was in Category:Biocrawler guidelines at a time when I was cleaning that up. Radiant_>|< 09:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• del fork of {{current}} --MarSch 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 19

[edit]

Template:Anarchism2

Used on only one page. Ingoolemo ^talk</font> 04:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• Keep. Being used on only a single page is not a TFD criterion. With complex nav boxes it makes sense to used transclusion to avoid cluttering the edit space. Or perhaps you also want to remove all the factboxs associated with planets, such as {{Planet Infobox/Earth}} used on Earth. Dragons flight 06:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Delete. Being used on a single page is still not a TFD criterion, but Radiant is correct that this is a fork apparently created by an aggressive edit warrior who has already had several POV page forks of Anarchism VfDed [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocrawler:Votes_for_deletion/Anarchism_%28anti-state%29_and_Anarchism_%28socialist%29) [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocrawler:Votes_for_deletion/Anarchism_%28theory%29) [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocrawler:Votes_for_deletion/Anarchism_%28philosophy%29). Based on the VfDs, I would support speedy. Dragons flight 07:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a fork of Template:Anarchism. Radiant_>|< 07:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork template. By the way, it was me who asked for this template be put on TfD at Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist). It was created together with the POV forks deleted on that VfD. And the only article this template is currently at is a suspected recreation of another deleted article (but I cannot find the original). --cesarb 11:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a duplicate. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• del fork --MarSch 13:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Slashdot

Since it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical, and since the Category:Slashdot already exists, delete this. Radiant_>|< 12:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This makes navigating easier for the user, whom is most likely interested in the topic anyway --Hoovernj 04:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not only can this be done better with categories, it should be done by prose in the slashdot article. Joe D (t) 12:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  There are 18 articles in Category:Slashdot and it's subcategory, and it makes sense to highlight the most important. As for describing them in the Slashdot article itself, what about the nine other places in article space where it is used as a navigational aid? Dragons flight 19:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Unless it changed in the last few minutes, then it doesn't look alphabetical, and navigation templates are naturally less all encompassing than categories. Could do with a little cleanup though. Dragons flight 13:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Most people who will be looking at one of the Slashdot articles will probably want to look at some of the other articles. This navigation box makes that convenient. BlankVerse ∅ 13:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful navigation box. --cesarb 16:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the point of having categories if there are going to be templates everywhere? - SimonP 17:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Convinced by Joe D's argument Mark Lewis 18:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it's been reworked. violet/riga (t) 19:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful navigation box. Nickptar 20:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Convenient aid.--Fangz 17:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, i use these all the time, and i never use categories. "omg 32 kb of wasted space" - dumb. SECProto 20:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- I believe this is useful (though a category exists for slashdot) --Oblivious 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful navigational aid. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful, and isn't hurting anyone. LeoDV 10:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notorious site, with subcultures, Geek concentration and your spiritual synthesis, it's one of the most Internet culture representative in these days. --Mateusc 17:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep why delete it? it does it's job, and does it well.
• Keep Now that it's been reworked. I really wish we could present categories in such a nice structured way some day. Until then, keep. — Sebastian (talk) 02:59, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Guideline1

Fork of Template:Guideline. Maybe we should consider speedy'ing template forks. Radiant_>|< 09:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you proposing this for deletion, Radiant, and what do you mean by fork? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• What I meant is that it's a duplicate of an existing template. Creating two divergent templates for a single purpose is potentially confusing. Radiant_>|< 09:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

How could it be confusing? There are many templates with different versions. Who would it confuse, and what might they be confused by? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• It would be confusing to see guidelines classified with two different templates. It implies that there are different kinds, or levels, of guidelines, and doesn't clarify in any way where the distinction lies. Radiant_>|< 10:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The only difference at the moment is that one is beige and the other is yellow, which I doubt will cause much confusion, and I've elsewhere explained to you that I'm going to reword the second one to improve the English, because the writing on the current template isn't very good. The important thing is to explain that the page is a guideline, not policy, and I won't be changing that core issue. Why on earth would the existence of this template matter to you so much that you nominate it for deletion within an hour of its creation? I'd be grateful if you would explain that, so I can understand what this is about. It's looking as though you've appointed yourself the template police. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple forks of the same content are problematic if the content/purpose of the "original" changes and the forks are not updated appropriately. You then have the possibility of multiple "official" looking templates that give differing information on the same subject. --TheParanoidOne 10:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Template police" might be a bit hard, but TFD is quite deletionist with respect to template forking. See, for example, Whedon-spoiler below. It has distinctive content and is used on dozens of pages and yet this community wants to delete it. Dragons flight 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• And keep, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously, if the wording of the existing needs attention, that template should be edited. Another template with 'better' wording is rediculous. -- Ec5618 10:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. As a developmental version it would do better (meaning avoid objections) by being placed in user space until SlimVirgin knows how she wants to change the templates in general use or how it will distinguish itself. Dragons flight 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and calm down. One of the deletion criteria is "Templates should not be redundant". If the original template needs work, just work on it. Sarg 11:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Comment. I just want to note for the record that I'd only just created the thing, in order to see whether I could work out how to change the color without screwing up the first one. I went to make myself something to eat, and returned to see it nominated for deletion! And not a word to me, which signals a distinct absence of the collaborative spirit. That's all I'm going to say because this isn't worth expending energy on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  Just an idea: Maybe we could agree on some convention to avoid such misunderstandings. Userfy probably isn't always an option as the change of namespace brings about some complications. Maybe just naming them "temporary_..." might help. — Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• del, tests belong in your userspace and that goes double for test forks --MarSch 12:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 18

[edit]

Template:Eric42TestPages

A user just "messing around". The template is only found one of the user's subpages. it should be subst:'d and then deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Subst: and then Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Subst & speedy delete. Test pages qualify. —Lifeisunfair 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy until we hear from Eric42 (talk • contribs). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Move the templates to his userspace, and delete the redirects. Notify the man that he can use his userpages as templates as much as he likes. — Sverdrup 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Hurricaneivanlatestadvisory

The name is self explanitory. It's an advisory from SAT SEP 11 2004. Presumably at one time the text was transcluded into an article on Hurricane Ivan, but a Biocrawler and Google site-search didn't find anything. User:Poccil who created the page quit editing in February. BlankVerse ∅ 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No longer useful. —Lifeisunfair 12:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per previous. --Feydey 13:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:ChattFM

A template for adding Category:Chattanooga FM stations to articles. Used on exactly one article. It should be subst:'d and deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Subst: and delete BlankVerse ∅ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep the now completed version (with the assumption that User:Radiojon will be writing LOTS of articles to "fix" all of those red links in the template). BlankVerse ∅ 12:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Subst & delete. Obviously unnecessary. —Lifeisunfair 12:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely do not delete!</small>. For the impatient, I have created the template that this was intended to be.   –radiojon 06:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
• Keep. Intended as a navigational template across a large number of pages that Radiojon is also apparently working on producing. Since it uses radio station frequencies (a very sensible organization), it is functionally distinct from the Category despite containing all the same elements. All in all, a useful navigational template, or at least it will be useful when the articles are created. Dragons flight 07:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, what makes this template "obviously unnecessary"? Phoenix2 23:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I hope that bug 491: category piping (http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=491) will soon get fixed, which will make such double work unnecessary. — Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• I think the names of those radio stations should be used instead of their frequencies. --MarSch 12:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 17

[edit]

Template:Multispoiler

Another specialized spoiler template. Unecessary. BlankVerse ∅ 05:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 05:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant. —Lifeisunfair 12:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. May be useful in articles about multiple fictional works. If not kept, at least make a redirect to Template:Spoiler. Or can templates be redirected at all? — JIP | Talk 19:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, templates can be redirected, and that would make sense in this case. Delete and/or redirect. Radiant_>|< 10:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in favor of template:Spoiler-about which does a better job when this might be useful. DES 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; let me explain... - If someone can find a handy alternative to this (which I do not believe "spoiler-about" to be, then delete it, but I really do believe that things like lists should hav a sort of all-points warning. [-Litefantastic]
• Delete in favour of {{spoiler-other}}, which is much more specific. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• del --MarSch 12:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Msh

An unused template for adding a non-existing category (Maps of South Holland) to an article. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Serves no purpose. —Lifeisunfair 12:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Phoenix2 03:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Whedon-spoiler

We do not need a spoiler template for every single fictional universe. -Sean Curtin 02:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Why not? It's useful and affects a large number of pages. If someone wants to keep track of it and use it then I think it is worth having. Dragons flight 04:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is better to use a template which warns what is going to be spoiled. MosheZadka 09:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - useless overspecialization. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not see how it is significantly useful. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It serves the same exact purpose as Template:Spoiler. - Brian Kendig 04:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unecessary specialization; redundant with Template:Spoiler. BlankVerse ∅ 05:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reason cited. —Lifeisunfair 05:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, simple template:spoiler is enough. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary specialization. A spoiler is a spoiler. Kelly Martin 11:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Radiant_>|< 11:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Presumably it is only used in the Whedonverse articles, so it should be obvious what is likely to be spoiled, yes? Redundant with the usual spoiler notice. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)