Sometimes, we want to delete things in the Template namespace. This is particularly used for article series boxes that are either not noteworthy, are redundant with categories, or which have simply been orphaned. For guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable article series box, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. If you vote to keep a series box, be prepared to explain how it fulfills the criteria set up at this page,
Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates should be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.
Note that, in addition to voting "Keep" or "Delete," a valid vote on this page is "Convert to category." In this case, all pages with the template should be added to an appropriately named category, and the template should be deleted.
To list a template on this page, add it to the list below under the appropriate date. Link to it as [[Template:Insert template here]] instead of as {{Insert template here}}. When listing a template on this page, add {{tfd}} to the top of the template itself. This will add the following text to the template:
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.
When adding this message to templates that are in the form of series boxes, the message should be placed inside the box, to make it clear what is being proposed for deletion. When being added to templates which have already been blanked, and are just sitting around as blanks, the message should be added to the template talk page. Again, do not blank templates to list them here - this is just if the template is already blank when you are listing it.
Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objects to its deletion have been raised. Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible. Archived discussions are located at /Log.
Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright problems -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- categories -- templates
Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log
Listings
Please put new listings under today's date at the bottom of the page.
December 13
Template:D
- Delete old, dilapidated uses to recreate as an uber-shortcut for Template:delete, in the tradition of Template:db. And Mediawiki:d too. --Whosyourjudas\talk 04:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yay, delete. --fvw* 07:17, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
- Move to date and delete. Oven Fresh 21:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yay, delete. --fvw* 07:17, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
- Delete. Deletions are an important form of maintenance, but not important enough to require a one-letter template. The other use is redundant, given we have Template:date. jni 10:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and do what Whosyourjudas said --BesigedB 17:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Whosyourjudas. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
December 19
Template:Otherplaces
- Basically a duplicate of Template:Otheruses, and serves only as m:instruction creep. Its not often that the disambig page lists only other place names. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
- del.--Jiang
- Keep! The reason the disambig page doesn't usually just list other place names is that Wikipedia is quite undeveloped on the geography side. Not only in the United States but in Europe, very many places (my estimate is about 10-15%) share their name with others; and almost every famous place does (Paris, Venice, Florence, Moscow, etc.). The overwhelming majority, in turn, of such proper nouns are not the names of people, cars, or other non-places. At any rate, instruction creep is not involved, since the instruction given to the reader is no more detailed or complex than that in the (rather ugly) phrasing of Template:Otheruses. — Bill 02:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Template:Otheruses1
- Created as a "meta-template" for Template:Otheruses and Template:Otheruses2, but it's not that hard to maintain consistent formatting between the two. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
- OK, I'll agree so long as someone does a subst into the two templates - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- They are, nevertheless, not consistent at the moment I write this. Keep and restore. -- Naive cynic 12:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Otheruses-number will also benefit from sharing formatting with Template:Otheruses and Template:Otheruses2. -- Naive cynic 12:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, it could not, otheruses-number uses different phrasing altogether. In any case, using "meta-templates" (templates inserted in other templates) is poor design, and doubles the backend processing required to use this template. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, is such increase of resource usage noticeable? -- Naive cynic 21:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would guess that it is, consider the hundreds (thousands?) of pages that {(otheruses)} is used on. You might ask User:Jamesday. He's a system administrator for the project. -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, is such increase of resource usage noticeable? -- Naive cynic 21:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, it could not, otheruses-number uses different phrasing altogether. In any case, using "meta-templates" (templates inserted in other templates) is poor design, and doubles the backend processing required to use this template. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
- Template:Otheruses-number will also benefit from sharing formatting with Template:Otheruses and Template:Otheruses2. -- Naive cynic 12:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Isn't even used right now for "meta-templating" - as Neto said, it's easy to replicate/retain format. delete. --Whosyourjudas\talk 19:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This template is too big and looks hideous when there are multiple boxes such as at Wilma Rudolph. Templates are not replacements for lists just because they look cool. The women here from different years have no close relation among each other to warrant this template. Link to Olympic medalists in athletics (women) (template box duplicated there) and make a category instead. --Jiang 11:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, mainly due to its size. The ones for individual champions (such as Template:Footer Olympic Champions 100 m Women) aren't as bad, but this is too unwieldy. sjorford 17:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Move to article. The organization is good, and each article transcluding it could be changed to merely link it, alleviating the space issue. Deco 10:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the information's already in Olympic medalists in athletics (women). Perhaps adding everybody to Category:Olympic Champions 4x100m Women would be the best solution. sjorford 10:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That page is great. Section links are the answer here. Replace transclusions with links like this: [[Olympic medalists in athletics (women)#100 m|Other 100 m women medalists]]. Deco 10:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the information's already in Olympic medalists in athletics (women). Perhaps adding everybody to Category:Olympic Champions 4x100m Women would be the best solution. sjorford 10:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 20
Template:Past-vfd
(and redirect at MediaWiki:Past-vfd)
Looks like this was used at some point to put a note on certain pages that a previous VFD took place. It made a like to a /deletion subpage where the VfD discussion was copied to. Modern practice on VFD, though, is to copy the VFD discussion directly into the Talk: page, so this is not something we need anymore. Will require some cleanup (copying the /deletion text to Talk: and deleting) on the pages where it is being used. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 21:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Template that supports an archaic practise. No utility anymore. jni 09:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Polvfd
Completely unused. Not likely to ever be. -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 21:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlikely to be used. jni 17:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:DVD cover
This template is a duplicate of Template:DVDcover. The latter seems to be in much more widespread use. I see no reason to keep this template. -- Benjamin Goldenberg
- Delete, not in use. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
- Delete. Unneeded duplicate. jni 17:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:TempUndelete
This forms the basis of a particularly condescending and destructive response to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deliberately blanking and protecting undeleted articles is a terrible idea.
- Delete. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Constructive way to make a deleted article's history available for review by non-sysops without clouding the issue of its status. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Could be useful. jni 09:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 22
Template:Lines
Except for Purple Line, all the links and locations are on disambiguation pages. Something like this should be done for each transit system, but on a general scale like this there is an infinite number of possible names for colored lines. --SPUI 22:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Chris j wood 19:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 23
Template:Hetman
- Oversized monstrosity of a template. Maybe split into 4, by its four current sections, but better off just being left as the category it includes. --Whosyourjudas\talk 03:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep.--Emax 04:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. First preference: Convert to categories, Second preference: Split this into four. Monstrous --Jiang 05:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Categorise Halibutt 07:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I like it - yes, it is big, but not a monstrosity, and I find it useful. Although it could be split into four smaller templates, one for each hetman category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Move to article. Much too big. Imagine if the text were blown up to a size where people with poor eyesight could actually read it — it would cover pages. The organization is great, but put it at normal size in its own article and link to it to save on real estate. Deco 10:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Fromwikipedia
(also MediaWiki:Fromwikipedia & redirect at MediaWiki talk:Fromwikipedia)
This template used to be the system message which generated the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." message at the top of each page. That function has been moved to MediaWiki:Tagline in the recent software upgrade, making this (now template) unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Delete. Reason: Update. Lee S. Svoboda
Template:Aboutwikipedia
(also MediaWiki:Aboutwikipedia)
Also redundant under 1.4 software update. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Delete. See Above. Lee S. Svoboda 21:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:CamTiny
{also Template talk:CamTiny and redirects at MediaWiki:CamTiny / MediaWiki talk:CamTiny)
I dunno what this was for, but noone's using it. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
- Could be useful for the pages in that list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_topics_in_alternative_medicine. From the history it seems that it was used somewhere, but that didn't catch on. Grue 16:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- delete inapproprate use of templates, most likely in use before the categories system was in place--Jiang 07:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- delete Ashibaka tlk 23:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Succession2, Template:Succession3, Template:Succession4
Now that 1.4 is out we don't need these duplicates of Template:Succession box. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think that we will go back to 1.3. :) Jeltz talk 19:50, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
- Indeed, delete. James F. (talk) 01:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yep yep. delete. --Whosyourjudas\talk 01:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Permission
Usage of this template for an image is the same grounds for Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because of non-free license. Images that are put up under a non-free license is grounds for deletion of the image, so it makes sense to delete a template that is bound to an image being under a non-free license. I guess I'm also starting this as consideration of deleting all images that use this template since they presumably are under non-free licenses, which is grounds for delete. Cburnett 19:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Jimbo has stated that all {{permission}} images will eventually be deleted, unless they can be found to be released under a free license. However, he also stated that we should not (yet) go around deleting these images at this time. This temlate allows them to be tagged for the time being. It could be very useful as well. Some people who gave permission to only Wikipedia would be willing to license under the GFDL (rather than see the pictures not used at all) if someone asks. This template puts them all in a category to be easily seen and processed. – Quadell (talk) (help) 22:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - as Quadell said. --Whosyourjudas\talk 23:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - as Quadell said. --Evil Monkey → Talk 05:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's take a f'rinstance - a real case. I have a photo of myself on my user page. The person who took the photo has allowed me to use it there, but has not granted permission for others to use it. Therefore the "Permission" template is exactly what I need in those circumstances. I'm sure mine is not an isolated case in this regard. Grutness|hello? 10:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Quadell, et al, Jimbo is not the only one using this template: Image:Bengalgirls.jpg, Image:Lanc.250pix.jpg, Image:Gloster.glad.649pix.jpg, etc. By the rules of wikipedia it says these images should be deleted because they are under a non-free license. Permission only to wikipedia is not a free license, ergo Quadell's point is moot. Keep because it violates the rules???? What's this new madness? Cburnett 17:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- And in case you guys didn't look, the first image has been here since July 2002 and the last two have been since April 2003. Clearly, these aren't being used for "the time being" but as permanent licenses. The template is promoting (or, in the least, providing a solution) the use of non-free images. Cburnett 17:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep until there are no images for which it is applicable. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Neutralitytalk 19:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Don't be ridiculous. You don't delete templates that are very widely used and critical in capturing a class of images that we need to focus on. That would just make it impossible to find them, and would also neglect our responsibility to inform readers that the image is not free. Deco 10:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 26
Template:InterWiki
This is just needless spam. Maybe it can sit in talk pages, but as it is used now as an article header, it is highly inappropriate. Even on talk pages, I dont see much relevance. See wikipedia:avoid self-references. --Jiang 17:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Most languages either already had or could have a link to xy.wp.o in their external links section, and this template would facilitate keeping a list of all of those (using the category). The only problem, IMHO, is that the author intended for it to be placed at the top of each article, which is definitely spam. I think that we should simply conclude that the notices should be moved off of the tops of pages and keep the template, near the bottom. --Joy [shallot] 21:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- We would need to reformat it into the wikiquote/wiktionary/wikicommons template style. --Jiang
- Keep if reformatted as per Joy's and Jiang's proposition. -- Naive cynic 08:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, yes it should be reworded and reformatted. It should also not be placed at the top of each article. (I know I'm guilty of this but will change my ways.) Wikiacc 16:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. As an administrator of a minor language wikipedia, I think this tag is useful in encouraging people interested in a language to contribute to, or at least visit, wikis that are often overlooked. QuartierLatin1968 01:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Please keep self references on talk pages. Most people reading the article will be illiterate in the language discussed. The message will be useless for them. They can visit but it will serve them no good. If people know a language, then they will have better places to look (ie the main page) than the language article itself. wikipedia:avoid self-references. --Jiang
- delete. we don't need a template for everything. if there is a WP in the language treated in the article, place a link under 'external links'. dab (ᛏ) 09:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm in the same position as QuartierLatin1968, but I have to agree with much of what the others have said. Put something explanatory in the External links, or a template near the bottom, because anyone interested enough in the article to be able to do anything useful for the minor WP is likely to read the whole article. Another obvious permissible addition to the "Xy language" article is a standard interwiki link starting with "[[Xy:"; and those of us who are contributing to minority languages can be vigilant in adding interwiki links to all other pages for which our "Xy" has an equivalent. Robin Patterson 10:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't usually participate in these kinds of discussions, but I happen to find this template in particular very useful. Every time I have to research a language, I find it helpful to visit that wiki. I often needto research and get a feel for various languages in my field. I happened to come across this "for deletion" advisory while researching Latin. I did go to that wiki and was glad it existed (I speak several languages so I can understand parts of these wikis). I also think it gives good exposure to smaller wikis. I would think that most ... speakers don't know they have a wiki, judging by the number of articles. QuartieLatin (are you from Montreal too?) and Robin Patterson are obviously literate in the languages discussed. Also, I am assuming that most of you rarely read the entries on language pages. I would ask, as someone who does, and finds this feature very useful, that we keep it.
- Delete (It appears rather Wikipedicentric to me. Being capable to read and/or speak a set of European languages, I think this could equally well be accomplished by a link under a suitable heading, as for instance External links or See also.) Ruhrjung 21:43, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
- Keep but change to style (and placement) of wikiquote/etc. —Tkinias 22:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but reformat to the sister project box style and placement. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 22:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but reformat It's good to promote other language wikis. This is really meta-wiki content. Is it possible to extend the "in other languages" sidebar box in some way, instead of adding a template within the article? —Michael Z. 01:33, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Keep but reformat. — mark ✎ 01:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely keep, whether reformatted or not. Visiting the given language Wikipedia might raise the interest in someone to spend more in-depth efforts on that language, and I think this is absolutely in accordance with the Wiki objectives. Even if they don't understand it, they may find it appealing to them, or may understand a few words, and they may be encouraged to continue studying. At least at the bottom, but the template should definitely be kept. --Adam78 15:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. While it's not directly applicable to the entry, it is useful auxiliary information. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 17:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Very useful for interwiki coordination. Anton Mravcek 22:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Since Wikipedias with low amounts of articles are no longer on the other languages section on the Main Page, this template is useful to see if that language has a Wikipedia to contribute to. Norman Rogers\talk 15:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a useful template for language research, etc. I disagree with the spam characterization, because language articles have a higher likelihood of being read by someone who may be interested to read a Wikipedia in the language described in the article.
--Ryanaxp 22:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) - Keep. It's very interesting to read about a little-used language and then see the same language in action. Anyhow, the usual interwiki links are not easy enough to notice; this template sticks out a bit too much... Perhaps it should be flushed to the right? --Pt 00:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Its a good way to get attention of speakers / learners of minority languages
- Keep, but reformat and have it at the bottom. Even there it violates the no self reference policy, but in the external links that may be acceptable. - Taxman 03:49, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but I agree that it should be reformatted like wikiquote and moved to the bottom of articles. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: some people are becoming entirely too anal-retentive about avoiding self-reference, they need to chill and think about it (I've even seen people objecting to references to sister projects like Wikibooks). The fact that a language is prominent enough to have its own specific Wikipedia is a criterion for notability and should therefore be mentioned in the article somewhere. I feel that the appropriate place would be in the External links section. --Phil | Talk 09:29, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm a big devotee of avoid self-reference, but this is an explicitly-permitted exception, because it is contained to a template and so can be removed en masse with a single edit. I was still unconvinced until I read above that real users find it useful. So let's keep it — perhaps dropping the font size a bit would satisfy more people. Deco 09:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:CamFailed and Template:CamPassed
(and MediaWiki:CamFailed and MediaWiki:CamPassed These are orphaned from articles! no such peer review process exists and there are no active participants at wikiproject alternative medicine. --Jiang 17:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 27
Template:Catmove
Everyone seems to use Template:cfd instead. -- Beland 11:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Wpcat
Only used in Category:Wikipedia:Unfinished articles, which is on WP:CFD. -- Beland 11:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Inactive
Meta-inactive. -- Beland 12:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:CataloniaInstitutionalRelationsAndParticipationMinisters
A one-article series box. -- Netoholic @ 14:56, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
Template:ICVPresidents
A one-article series box. -- Netoholic @ 14:56, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
Template:"Mumbai - Suburban Railway:Western"
Replaced with Template:Mumbai - Suburban Railway,Western. -- Netoholic @ 15:14, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
Template:&
Useless. -- Netoholic @ 15:19, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
- Delete. Really odd name for a template. Not in use. jni 17:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Toomanyboxes
BJAODN. Vacuum c 17:36, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep in some form, it's genuinely funny on user pages and the like --BesigedB 22:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I've reverted the page move to user's space. That's not proper procedure. Let the vote finish. -- Netoholic @ 01:05, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Then why can VfD's be speedied before the vote has finished? Vacuum c 03:14, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Experimentation of Wikipedia:Preliminary deletion, I beleive. Or the article was a genuine WP:CSD candidate in the first place --BesigedB 00:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Then why can VfD's be speedied before the vote has finished? Vacuum c 03:14, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete or move to BJAODN --fvw* 04:01, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- shouldnt you be nominating the other pastel shaded boxes that accompany this one? we dont wan't to shoot the cop when pursued by a gang of bandits. good template. --Jiang 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep! Great amusement value! -- Naive cynic 11:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Haha... it's a pastel box against pastel boxes. Move to BJAODN. Deco 11:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 28
Italy infobox
Wrong namespace, duplication of Template:Italy infobox. -- Naive cynic 11:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Rewrite
Duplication of {{inuse}} and {{inusefor}} function. Can use something like {{Inusefor|hour by [[User:Eric Urban]] to fix the foo section}} instead. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Keep I made this not to show that edits will be done for a few hours but to show that a major rewrite is being done that will take more than a few hours. It'd be dumb to have two people writing about the same thing without collaborating. Eric Urban 05:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
December 29
Old State University of New York templates
I've combined five different templates related to the State University of New York (Template:SUNY_University_Centers, Template:SUNY_Doctoral_Granting_Institutions, Template:SUNY_University_Colleges, Template:SUNY_Technology_Colleges & Template:SUNY_Community_Colleges) and I think improved the situation considerably with a consolidated Template:SUNY. Now there is no need for the older templates.--Pharos 14:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:survivedvfd
Another GNAA creation. -- Netoholic @ 19:39, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
- You, sir, are a complete and total moron. I made this because our page has survived FOUR VfDs, and is undergoing a fifth. All of the people after the first claim to have no knowledge of the previous VfDs, so I made this template to let people know that a particular article has survived VfD. This is not trolling, this is nothing more than creating a template I thought would be useful. Dominotree 21:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- WP:NPA. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Don't count Dominotree as a vote. User is a sock puppet with less than 100 edits. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
- I've been here for over a year and made countless contributions. The only reason I ever registered an account was to vote, because previously I had no need for an account, but now it seems that having an account makes me worse off than not having one. You guys are such hypocrites. If I do 100 edits then does my vote count? Dominotree 05:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Dominotree is a legitimate user regardless of some of his actions and his vote counts (though I also believe it should be deleted). Arminius 06:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I retract my Keep vote. Dominotree 06:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neutralitytalk 22:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - redundant with existing notices that are supposed to be placed on articles. Also makes no distinction between survival due to lack of consensus and survival due to consensus to keep. Block Dominotree for personal attacks. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Isn't calling me a sock puppet a personal attack? Vote to Block Netoholic for personal attacks. Dominotree 05:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - we don't need to know about past VfDs. Ashibaka tlk 23:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but use for talk pages. Suggest that Cyrius just block Dominotree instead of voting about it. Snowspinner 01:40, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's very nice. I appreciate you making your bias and hipocracy blatantly obvious. Dominotree 05:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete! —OvenFresh☺ 03:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Replace with a box on VFD saying DO NOT LIST GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA HERE. --SPUI 05:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Arminius 05:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't like the template, but there's something to be said for having a prominent notice on article talk pages letting people know that they have survived VfD. There's no good reason for listing something twice, so it would at least let would be content-destroyers know that their peers have already tried. Dr Zen 05:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I believe it is useful knowledge to know whether or not an article has survived a VfD. In fact, I find this very similar to the constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy. Brownman40 06:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Anyone who lists a page before examining its talk page, which should have a clear reference to the previous VfD according to deletion policy, is just delete-happy. I would support a policy change to mandate that the talk page is examined before a page is listed, to look for any meaningful justification of suspicious content. Deco 09:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Neutrality talk
Created, then protected by User:Neutrality and used only on his user talk page. Improper use of template namespace. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
Template:HP Characters
Was marked for speedy deletion, but I don't believe templates match any of the speedy deletion criteria. The comment given was 'Five-template-use workaround no longer needed; Template:HP Character is the main template'.-gadfium 02:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following templates are similar: Template:HP linked workaround, Template:HP ref workaround, Template:HP unlinked workaround. They should be deleted along with the above.-gadfium 02:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Holding Cell
These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (Admin or otherwise) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted. If you've cleared a page, note it here.
Remove Entirely
Template:R from alternate language and/or alternate spelling
Template:Stubble
It seems to be Template:Stub rewritten in Yoda-speak. It also seems redundant and unnecessary. —No-One Jones 06:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Ugly math
I don't see the point of slapping this hideous orange box on top of articles that the reader can already tell are full of difficult and abstract math, and the link to a less complex article which it provides could just as easily be handled with an ordinary cross-reference. —No-One Jones 00:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template:Seecat
- Merge with Template:Categoryredirect, per Template talk:Seecat. -- Beland 09:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)