< December 27	December 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blatant violation of WP:POINT; created with a statement by the creator that he knows it is an inappropriate use of templates by Wikipedia rules but is creating it anyway. Creator has invoked WP:IAR despite initially not explaining why the rules need to be violated. When he finally did explain, the explanation was basically "I think it would be good if we used templates to add the same body text to multiple articles", attempting to unilaterally make a major change in how templates are used, which if accepted would apply to far more than just this one template. Ken Arromdee 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per the talk page...

It's hardly disrupting Wikipedia, it's explanation should be clear - taking a small event and inviting users to define how Wikipedia can best summarise that incident, and then inserting it simultaneously into every article that mentions it, instead of United States occupation of Fallujah and First Battle of Fallujah having vaguely-different retellings of the same incident. Now, when consensus agrees to change a detail (such as say the unnecessary "This may have been a reaction to the policy by some private military contractors of shooting any cars that got too close to them while driving to reduce the danger from suicide bombers." from Fallujah's original telling of the event) or the too=-wordy "known previously as "the old bridge", but now as "the Blackwater bridge" and to the Marines as "the Brooklyn Bridge", it is changed across multiple articles at once.

No, it's not the intended use of templates - but it improves Wikipedia, and it offers no harm to the project, thus why it fits nicely into the official policy of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules's guidelines. It is "the exception to the rules", and thus no, it does not mean that "if accepted would apply to far more than just this one template." as you claim. The template is improving Wikipedia in a way that couldn't be done without using it, and it offers no harm...yes it's a feature being used in a way other than it was designed for, but it was mentioned on #wikipedia and talk pages long before it was created, and faced no opposition. Now it exists, it improves the project, it harms nothing, and it deserves to stay. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about your justification that is specific to this one template. Even if you may not intend that other templates be used this way, your reasoning does, in fact, apply to other templates, and if fully accepted would change large portions of Wikipedia. Ken Arromdee 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, the usage of templates to provide prose to articles is generally frowned upon, because it makes the text harder to edit and because identical wording is rarely appropriate. If you're going to be using the exact same wording in two separate articles, you might want to prune one or the other for redundancy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this template in context is strengthening my opposition to its existence. Its use in Blackwater USA and Scott Helvenston is out of place and awkward. The incident requires separate coverage for each article, and anyone seeking the fullest detail can be referred to our single main article on the subject. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at it in those articles, the first thought that comes to mind (other than "well he has a point") is that it could likely be fixed by something as simple as adding two breaklines (----) to the top and bottom of the template, possibly setting it as "clearly templated text" which then wouldn't be different from say, the div tags used in many other articles such as Gerald Ford to show relevant quotations, or Charles Whitman to show his equipment lists. I don't think right now this template is the best-thing to ever happen to Wikipedia, but I think it has potential, and with a little work (it's only existed for less than a day), it could be a valuable resource. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Templates do not get used to write article content. Period. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per above. Its a lazy way to "maintain" multiple articles. There is rarely any reason for multiple articles to have precicely the same text. If they do, that generally means that one should be pruned as redundant, or that the articles should be merged. Resolute 00:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep,I agree with Sherurcij that the Template should stick because we can not have diferent variations of that small but again realy defining event in the Iraq war on various articles on Wikipedia, the users of Wikipedia should make a consensus what realy happened on that day and that template should be used as an integral part of various articles that are created that have connection to that event. Top Gun 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Resolute. TJ Spyke 02:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Templates should never contain article text -- they're not part of the main namespace! Per Wikipedia:Template namespace:

Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.

• This is per David Gerard in March 2005. If someone wants to see this changed, do it through discussion and consensus-building, not by claiming WP:IAR. -/- Warren 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated above (per Wikipedia:Template namespace).
• Delete per David Gerard. >Radiant< 11:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The idea is not neccesarily WP:POINT, but rather an attempt to ensure that the content remains the same in various articles which cover the same thing. Even so, I don't think the idea is a good one. It makes it confusing to edit (a person may suddenly find that he has edited two or three pages instead of the one he thought he was editing) and there is no real need to ensure that all our articles have exactly the same wording and content even if the topics happen to overlap. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Templates shouldn't be used for article prose. Period.Publicus 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with Fallujah. The contents of this template seems more fitting for this article than anything else, unless I'm missing something.--Toastr 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - prevents the logical flow in some articles by forceing them to conform to this style of prose. This is not what templates are for --T-rex 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That's what ((main article)) is for. ~ trialsanderrors 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous discussions can be found at: WP:TFD/Log/Not deleted/2005/09, WP:TFD/Log/Not deleted/2005/10 and WP:TFD (2006-02-16).

Already superseded by MediaWiki:Talkpagetext on EN and SIMPLE. Deprecate, then merge and delete as nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ((talkheader)) isn't used everywhere, and contains useful information, as well as a convenient link for starting a new topic. If all the things in this template can be merged into MediaWiki:Talkpagetext, then I will change my position. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Stevie's statement. BishopTutu 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't understand, how is it superseded? Do the size warnings supersede ((Long))? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. This does contain useful information, but I doubt that newbies ever actually read it. The new MediaWiki text isn't any better than this solution. --- RockMFR 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is very useful to talk pages and it helps to lay down the rules on talk pages. Without it, there could be more violations of the talk page guidelines (i. e., personal attacks, general talk, etc.) Cheater1908 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I use it in every single talk page, and it is very useful for orienting new users even if not all of them. It is concise and informative. I also don't understand how it is superseded. Baristarim 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't agree that MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is an adequate replacement. The obvious advice and info makes it difficult for vandals to plead ignorance and I find the link to the topic useful. Perhaps MediaWiki:Talkpagetext should be deleted as it is superfluous and Template:Talkheader is better. Folks at 137 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I also think the MediaWiki text is not a replacement and I add this template when I can. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Template encourages editors to avoid incivility and personal attacks and makes it clear the talk page is only for discussing improvements to a specific article. If anything, MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is the redundant template. Ovadyah 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful in orienting new users to the ways and means of talk pages -- not all of them, to be sure, but I remember getting some use out of it, when I was new. Not to discount MediaWiki messages, but I imagine that note will have about as much impact as the copyright notice -- namely, not too much. No harm in keeping them both around; our learning curve is steep, so we may as well strive to be as user-friendly as possible. Luna Santin 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep. I think it's much more useful than the other one above and the other one above does not "superceed" it. ( Just The Q ) ( talk ) 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and vociferous Keep. I think this is far more informative than the new basic message. I appreciate that the basic message tells people to sign their comments, but the Talkheader addresses other issues that are equally vexing, like people not starting new comments at the bottom of a talk page. Yes, some people ignore the directions, but hey, if we deleted everything that noobs and less observant editors didn't use, half the project would vanish. My humble two cents. NickBurns 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very useful. --Loremaster 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Luna Santin.--Grand Slam 7 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and in the interest of getting the ugly TFD link off all the Talk pages this is transcluded onto as quickly as possible. -- Renesis (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this banner has served its purpose, most people now know what a talk page is. For those who don't it would be better to be welcomed by a banner of a relevant wikiproject. frummer 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per WP:SNOW. No need to delete this one! Note, you only see the MediaWiki notice when editing, not when viewing, so that is another argument to keep. --SunStar Net^talk 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As more people visit Wikipedia, the guidelines must be cleared up and easily accessible to everyone, this template does exactly that. And please, stop nominating it for deletion. If a clear sollution can't be reached, then it should be left to rest. --May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg ^{(drop me a line)} 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obsolete. A suitable alternative has been allowed for in MediaWiki. This template no longer serves any unique purpose, whereas it continues to contribute to talk page clutter.--cj | talk 23:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per T-Borg, why delete this and still keep that stupid template ((spoiler))?
• Keep per all above, and possibly per WP:SNOW!. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nice looking and informative, MediaWiki:Talkpagetext just looks dull and pointless. Madder 00:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Mediawiki:Talkpagetext is most definitely not enough. This template is extremely an extremely good introduction for new users that accidentally discover the talk namespace. It does several good things at once. —Dylan Lake 01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above comments Tyson Moore es 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've never found this template necessary, even without being superseded. It only adds to the absurdly excessive clutter at the top of increasing numbers of Talk pages. Explaining the basic functionality of a talk page is the responsibility of the Help: namespace. Powers ^T 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment-This template is useful for quickly educating users that may not look at the help namespace. —Dylan Lake 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  At the expense of cluttering up the already-cluttered top of most talk pages? No thanks. Maybe if it was reduced in size... maybe. Powers ^T 16:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep close via WP:SNOW Very helpful for new users and makes it easier by not having to explain the rules. TJ Spyke 01:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very useful in helping calm a difficult talk page and providing quick pointers to those who won't read the guidelines. Yes they should, but many don't especially the occasional contributor. The Media Wiki is a helpful final reminder, but does not replace this. Regan123 02:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Mujinga 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a very nice header as it provides links to the newcomers and is useful to others. — Arjun 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though I don't think it should be on every talk page, only ones with frequent violations of the talk page guidelines. RJASE1 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very useful tool, helpful reminder regarding etiquette. Smeelgova 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment It seems the consensus will be to keep, but it is important to note that this template shouldn't be thrown on just any talk page. Maybe we can address some concerns with the template via usage guidelines? -- Ned Scott 04:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that some usage guidelines may help. IMO, any article that attracts a lot of talk page attention from new users should have this template. It's a nice box, and could very well be the first thing that a brand-new Wikipedian sees when they want to contribute their thoughts on a talk page. We could also include some instructions for advanced users on how to hide the talkheader box by modifying Monobook.css. -/- Warren 04:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a good way of grabbing attention of new editors, and pointing out the use of a Talk page. It also fits in with other templates commonly applied to the top of Talk pages in design, drawing the eye to relevant information. -- Kesh 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep! This template provides a very useful guide for new editors who might not yet know the ways of Wiki and might otherwise make a faux-pas. The template is also a useful reminder for stressed editors. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a valuable template that clearly informs users on how to use the talkpage. MatthewUND^(talk) 07:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it" TomStar81 (Talk) 08:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, widely used template and a very useful template for newbies posting on talk pages. This is also a reminder for editors who have problems or may be incivil. This template is a lot fo benefit to talk pages and editors editing it. Terence Ong 09:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; most of this is unnecessary. Ral315 (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is useful and widely used, why delete it? ← ANAS ^Talk? 10:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I feel the template is very useful in 'making the aims and rules' obvious to any new editors adding to discussion pages. The newer template is much smaller and could easily be overlooked. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very important. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, despite the fact the template right now looks like a 8 bit palette. -- ReyBrujo 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, just looked at the archives. This is the 4th attempt in 15 months (2nd this year) to delete this template. ALL have been decisively voted down - the proposers should heed the consensus and stop wasting time or seeking to sneak an unpopular decision. Please. Folks at 137 14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not everyone clicks edit, it is helpful for the many people who read wikipedia and never contribute to understand what the talk page is for. I don't know if it should be on every page, but the beauty of a template is that it doesn't have to be. I personally only use it for articles that are very timely and often have a lot of chit-chat on the talk page. - cohesion 17:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People can only see the MediaWiki message when editing the talk page, not on it itself, so this makes me question the point of this TFD. Not assuming bad faith, just asking a question. --SunStar Net^talk 02:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please, please, please, please, please, please, please DELETE. One of the absolute worst things about Wikipedia. Go to a talk page and... there are five hundred templates! And this is always on top, and it's horrid. Absolutely horrid. "This is the talk page for such and such article". Gee, really? I never would've guessed by the big "talk page" link that I clicked on to get here. "Don't bite newcomers"? Gee, I'm either a newcomer myself (so this is worthless) or I'm experienced, so I've already seen that page (I should've gotten it on my welcome message, for one thing). And the rest of it is trash, too. It doesn't need to be there. Talk pages are for talking, not posting dumb templates. Remove the temptation. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The wiki method is for those who feel this way to remove it when they come across it, and for those who like it to put it in. If the first group are consensus, it will die out on its own. If not, it will survive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOOO!!! That would lead to arguments and edit wars all over the place! Decide here whether it's appropriate and live with it. Then we can refer local disputes to this consensus. Folks at 137 16:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • TfD doesn't exist to force people to use every template someone thinks they should. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not intend to imply that - I was arguing that a decision here should have influence - whichever way it goes. Folks at 137 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, that is a problem that needs to be addressed in general, and many of those other headers are worse offenders, being longer and less streamlined. This template is used on thousands of talk pages where it is the only header. —Centrx→talk • 03:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is too broad as Wesleyan can refer to numerous schools and there is another school simply known as Welseyan Univeristy. User:SandyGeorgia went through and manually changed all of the redirects to Template:Ohio Wesleyan University so this template should now be blank and ready for deletion without any problem/objection. Balloonman 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, you broke this by overwriting the content of the template with the TFD nom. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom is very confusing but he's just asking for deletion of the orphaned redirect left behind by the move of a template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should be deleted, as this template is for including a search engine results page in an article, which is specifically against Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #7. We should include links to individual articles, not search engine results pages. Only used in one article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I know perfectly well how to use a search engine. When I'm looking at an encyclopedia article, I want to actually see useful external links, not just a link to a place where I can find them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Resolute 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was tentative keep - no votes, no replacement infobox. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil film character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mostly fancruft, but mainly because I merge most of the characters from the Resident Evil film series into one list. Jonny2x4 17:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Champions League 2005/06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsolete as we only use templates for the current season. Therefore, this template is only used in the Champions League 2005/06 article. Can be subst'ed before deletion. --Punkmorten 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA Cup 2005/06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsolete as we only use templates for the current season. Therefore, this template is only used in the UEFA Cup 2005/06 article. Can be subst'ed before deletion.. --Punkmorten 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - reason as above. Tonytypoon 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - maybe change UEFA Cup 2006/07 (etc) to Current UEFA Cup, to save this every year? ArtVandelay13 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete separate the Template helps to clear it from articles. Matthew_hk tc 11:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed-list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

template is not used (only one user page links); unclear what this was intended for, and apparently redundant to other dispute templates such as ((Disputed-section)) Dl2000 15:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lists are articles so could use article tags. >Radiant< 10:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template duplicates the behaviour and options of Template:Infobox television episode. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — infobox noticeably uses a different design (I did actually try to remedy this once to allow TV show infoboxes to just use the 1 infobox..) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only see a different color. Add a color tag if you really want a color. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha you kidding me :D? Template_talk:Infobox_Television_episode#Background_Colour_Tag. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the fact that it uses a different design is a disadvantage! Consistency is good. Thousands of minor variations on a basic template is bad. General purpose templates keep the caches warm. Xtifr _tälk 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no reason to use this when their is already a template for TV shows. TJ Spyke 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ral315 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Consistency. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Heritage Sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely useless. And on the top of things, the image used is fair use... Renata 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One broken sentence and one fair use image do not a template make. -- Kicking222 14:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, adds nothing to articles.-gadfium 23:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Potentially useful I did some editing but someone has to put more work into it. It could be a useful addition toi article but the it's applied now it distracts more than it elucidates. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image is actually public domain. —Dgies^t c 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it was chenged. See. Renata 12:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Terence Ong 06:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated above. CG 13:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The main effect of this template is to develop a presence for Placeopedia.com on Wikipedia. The template is transcluded in the External links sections of many geographical articles and I think the links should be considered spam. (see also Talk:Placeopedia) The site is unconnected with the Wikimedia Foundation but associates itself with the trademarked Wikipedia logo. Putting one of the ((coor)) templates allows similar functionality for the user, and allows them to use their choice of mapping software. Femto 12:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Placeopedia isn't IMDb- it's not considered a sufficiently reliable source that we need to have a template to externally link to it. -- Kicking222 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the coor template is much more useful because it allows the user their choice of software.-gadfium 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We should a)not force a software on our readers (NPOV?) and b)this is spam at the least, and at the worst this group is engaging in trademark infringement against the Wikimedia Foundation. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 09:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CG 13:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was revise, but no other clear consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template does nothing but add ambiguous, confusing links surrounded by a loud box and an unnecessary icon. Its role is better served by succession boxes, which allow for a description of the relationship that actually relates the articles, or by plain text "See Also" links, which can have a short explanation next to them. There are a number of complaints agreeing with these sentiments on the talk page for the template. --Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - this was a nice idea, but not well thought-out and succession boxes are more user friendly. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rehabilitate - convert to a generic succession template with a subject variable. Biggest complaint I've heard is on how vague the connections were made. It should still be possible to have more than one predecessor & successor, since there will not always be a one-to-one relationship. Cwolfsheep 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is it any better to have a template than text links, and how would that version be different from succession boxes? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article hierarchy is unidirectional, Template:Subarticleof became template:background and was deleted in January. Twice. Template:Sub-article was deleted November 20. See also the nominations (and subsequent deletions) of Template:Branchlist on April 6 and Template:rootpage on April 2. Circeus 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The biggest issue I am trying to avoid is an inconsistent "see also" series on pages. Some articles do have a many-to-one or one-to-many relations: so what I am looking to create is a way to effect such links consistently. A tech tree in a video game would be an example of a whole picture of such relationships. Cwolfsheep 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:GTL is clear that "see also" should not contain articles already linked in the article. If the article is the subset of a topic, the necessary links should be available in the lead. Poor writing is not an excuse for resurrecting schemes that have been rejected multiple times.Circeus 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how fair it is to cite a section that you recently have revised and added emphasis to. The sentence about See also ideally not containing links found in the article was not previously bolded, making the guideline less "clear." -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 09:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One hierarchy is already difficult to manage. Circeus 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm adding that the purpose of the template is far, far too unclear, and it lends itself extremely easily to Original research. 90% of the time, a footer or series box is what is needed anyway.Circeus 14:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is very helpful in understanding the chronology of events. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Patchouli 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we had timelines for that??Circeus 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I see in Ecumenopolis, Megalopolis and Civilization is not a "chronology," it's a blatant violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Circeus 14:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of timelines. As a fool, I had found the step template easy to use.--Patchouli 14:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you should necessarily use it (I personally think it's unwieldy myself), but the relationships (because there are several) expressed in ((step)) are still more easily handled within the article. Some are purely time-related, others are evolutionary, and if the line is not completed fully, it is confusing. Circeus 14:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In what way is its applications and functions different from that of succession box? — Instantnood 17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A succession box is appropriate for a series of subjects with a one-to-one succession order, defined transition, and no clear hierarchy of refinement. The step template is for the progression of a field/technology/idea where there may be multiple predecessors or successors, a lack of clearly defined transition dates, a clear hierarchy of refinement. Imagine trying to use a succession box for PCI: it was succeeded by AGP, PCI express and PCIX, but all four technologies coexist in the marketplace. A succession template also only indicates time-based ordering, not an ordering of superiority/advancement. —Dgies^t c 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet why would it be any better to use this template over a sentence that states "PCI as succeeded by AGP, PCI express and PCIX, but all four technologies coexist in the marketplace"? The template is just going to be ambiguous and confusing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rethink I can certainly see the useful point behind this, although it seems not to have worked well (Hamlet (place) for example is a logical nonsense, as the definition in the article is flatly contradicted by the way this template has been used). The tech tree idea above looks as though it would be worth exploring further.HeartofaDog 15:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Revise or Remove This template in its present state seems to be causing more confusion then help. Consider adding a header or exploring the tech tree idea further. Please let me know when a decision is made. I would like to help update articles using this template.Phatom87 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and refine: Add an extra feild into the template stating what the sucession was. Eg. was the succession a) Next release, b) A direct decendent or enhancement, c) Inspired, d) upgrade path (or alternate), e) Next Elected f) Replaced by, g) killed by, ,... etc etc Certainly this field is missing. As in interim step a ^{[type of succession needs to be cited]} tag could be included. I am sure that this would prompt people to review the field>> Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 09:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion of main-space copy. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AndonicO's Happy Holidays template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unecyclopedic use of template space for a greeting card. I asked the user to subst and have posted the TfD tag on the talk page for the moment. If the substing doesn't happen by tomorrow I'll move it to the template page. ~ trialsanderrors 06:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - Nice idea but doesn't belong in mainspace and should have been subst:'d to reduce server load and prevent the problem userfying will cause. —Dgies^t c 07:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shouldn't be userfied because as it is the redirect from template space to user space would have to remain, which really doesn't do anything to reduce server load and in addition creates a needless cross-namespace redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 10:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do I have to substitute it in every page I left it or can I do it just on the template page? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you have to subst it in every user page. If it could be done on the template page I'd done it already. ~ trialsanderrors 10:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'll get to work then... | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I subst 132 of them, exept Dgies (because he transcluded it), and 7 archived ones. Should I subst the ones in the archive as well? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your call. Unsubsted templates will turn into a redlink once the template itself is removed. ~ trialsanderrors 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I'll do it to the archived ones. By the way, does "userfying" mean adding "User:x" at the beginning of the template? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, userfying would mean to move the template into userspace, in this case to User:AndonicO/AndonicO's Happy Holidays template. ~ trialsanderrors 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, User:Bearly541 helped, but what I'd like to know is what the difference is. Is it because unencyclopedic templates are allowed in userspace? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, like userboxes. And please get a smaller sig. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general talk page messages should never be created as templates, userspace or template space. You can simply copy and paste the code of the original message into each user's talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks. I'll fix the sig later. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy please, this is a personal template of AndonicO's Happy Holidays greetings. It is not a template but a personalised greeting card. Does not belong here, sorry, but this is not the place. Terence Ong 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oops, I thought I had already mentioned that I moved it to userspace. It's now User:AndonicO/My Happy Holidays template. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No transclusions remain, copy exists in user space, mainspace copy can now be deleted. —Dgies^t c 21:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The theory behind this is very interesting. Templates used for forward compatability are cool, in theory. However, after a lot of waffling about how it is necessary because of reasons that assume a number is necessary, nobody at WT:PCP has come up with a reason that any number at all should be included. Thus, we just have a place for vandals to insert penises into 494 articles at once, with no good use. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, consider this withdrawn, apparently it's not clear I no longer agree with it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO!!!!! Don’t withdraw. While I personally don’t support deletion( please see my vote below for reason), your reasons, particularly the vandalism, are good points. Don’t withdraw because you’re outnumbered, only when your wrong. Frankly, whether the number needs to be in every article is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether we need a template to accompish this. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, which is why I am wrong. TfD is not for template usage concerns. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --WikidSmaht (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor choice of words. >.> Anyway, "insertion" could be handled by protection. Plenty of "high risk" templates are semi-protected or fully protected. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should keep the fact that it's been vandalized out of the argument. The George W. Bush article has been hit by a lot of vandalism, I'm sure, but it hasn't been deleted. It's unfortunate that people have vandalized this template, but that shouldn't be grounds for deletion. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should have clarified that more. My rationale for deletion doesn't include vandalism, that's just there to be kinda sorta funny, and to preemptively counter any "It doesn't do any harm!" comments. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about an "it shouldn't do any harm!" comment? We shouldn't have to write articles on Wikipedia considering whether it'll be vandalized. We should just write articles and revert vandalism when it happens. My take on this TfD is Keep. The template can be immensely useful if and when more Pokémon are released. The Pokenum template is used in many articles so that when a new Pokémon is released, writers do not have to search through Wikipedia to find the old number and edit the whole article to insert the new number. A few months ago, when the new Pokémon Diamond and Pearl species were being released, the Pokenum template was being updated frequently with new numbers. The Pokenum template is not used only in the individual Pokémon species, either. It's used in several articles such as Pokémon, and oddly enough, in a lot of user namespace as well. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me please. AAA AAAA AAA AAAAAAAA AA AAAAAAAA!. Now, why must everyone sidestep my question? Why must there be a number at all? And if it doesn't do any help, then even a theoretical harm should suffice for deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not registered here but i believe, having reverted some of the Vandalism myself that I should get a say. The template for Pokemon is easily one of the best (for Pokemon on the internet). It doesn't have the detail that Serebii.net's does, but that isn't the point, is it? This isn't a fan-site. I'm getting off-topic here. If you're trying to say that the numbering system for Pokemon is a problem, then you should simplify the problem by listing them by number in the national pokedex's number system - the reason I say this is that it is the one and only Pokedex that lists them all, by generation, in order. It's a logical idea and a simple one at that. And vandalism surely can be prevented?

Oh, by the way, I've yet to see a decent arguement on here. What is being proposed is something that to my knowledge has worked since it's creation. Yes, vandalism is an issue, but I have yet to see a page being deleted due to it, at least solely to that reason. 89.242.217.197 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Darkrai[reply]

Yes, but vandalizing ONE article is different from vandalizing 500 at once. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the template in question allows for the numbers in all the 493 articles to be altered at once, rather then having to go through all of them and do it by hand. It is importent to have then number, because pokemon, as an notible anime/game/etc, the pokemon are it's bread and butter. The Total number is almost mystical, if you will. it is, in some ways, symbolic of the whole 'got to catch them all'. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I brought this up on the talk page there a month ago, and no one seems to have been able to justify it. We don't define helium, for example, as "Helium is one of a 118 chemical elements"; it is defined by its properties, what it is, not by some total number of other entities in the same class, which is almost totally irrelevant. —Centrx→talk • 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be rather funny. "Helium is one of the 118 chemical elements of the periodic table..." -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be more funny if all the articles on Pokemon creatures did not start exactly this way. "Carbon is one of the 118 chemical elements of the periodic table...", "Plutonium is one of the 118 chemical elements of the periodic table...". One would think they are all identical. —Centrx→talk • 07:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• son't be silly! Everyone know there is 119 elements!one could argue that they are infact all the same. because they are all pokemon after all.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above. There's no reason to give an exact number of pokemon in every other pokemon article. If you want an exact number, then view one of the main articles. Like Centrx said above, we don't do this for other articles. It's not major or anything, just unnecessary. The con's might not be huge, but neither are the pro's. There's no good reason for this template, and reasons to get rid of it. So.. I'm not sure what the big deal is. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main objection is the use of the template on so many articles. If this template is going to be used on a limited number of articles and not every single Pokemon article then I would not oppose keeping it. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep just because the template shouldn't be used on every single page in the intros, doesn't mean that it doesn't still have use. The template can still be used in general prose throughout the variety of articles. And is still pertinent for articles that might fly under the radar who refer to the number of pokemon in existence (e.g. Eyecatch). Sure remove it from ((pokestart)), and all 493 species articles that use it for the sole purpose of saying X is one of 493 species of pokemon, but like in this sentence, it can still be useful and is used in other manners across all of wikipedia (templates' usability is not confined to the article namespace, and there are many non-article pages that use this template as well - what links to Pokenum). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why we need a template for that. We don't have a template for the number of elements discovered, nor for the number of Digimon, so why here? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • because when the number changes that means any article that quotes the number will be wrong. the number of pokemon changes much more often than the number of elements. it's a small cheap template that saves people the headache of trying to track down any article that might mention the current number of pokemon, and it is still useful in non-article namespaces (if it wasn't it wouldn't be used). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. When new Pokémon were being introduced earlier this year, I had to search through Wikipedia for instances of 386 to replace it with the Pokenum template, and it was a pain. An adjustable template would save someone from this trouble in the future. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So just include the number only in the main article. —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• so when someone writes an article and wants to mention the number of pokemon we say they can't? i'm not talking about identical leads in all 493 pages but in other pages like i've listed below -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly do not see what purpose this template actually serves. The only article that needs to keep track of the number of Pokemon in existence is the main article. The rest are prefectly fine simply stating that x character is a pokemon character. There is no reason to have hundreds of articles listing what is largely irrelevent information. Resolute 06:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here's the problem, people are wanting to delete the template for the wrong reasons. Yes, the pokenum template should be removed from being in every lead section. However, there are other articles (e.g. Eyecatch, Pokémon Master, Pokémon game mechanics), several talk pages, the portal page, and even wikipedia pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Pokémon test) that use this. template usefulness extends beyond the article namespace -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get that it is heavily used. I took a look at what links to the page. I just do not believe posting this number is necessary in more than a handful of articles and otherspace pages. Certantly not more than would be easy to maintain. The drawbacks of a template like this outweigh the benefits, IMNSHO. Resolute 07:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are plenty of templates out there that are used less than this would be after removing it from the majority. Surely those few pages could be easily monitored but those aren't deleted. besides, we aren't safeguarded from future uses of the number, if someone creates a new article, or rewrites a section that approriately uses the number somebody will have to catch it if the number ever changes. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All the aforementioned articles could do without a number. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about the portal, or some future article? and we shouldn't be forbiding people from using the current number which is what you'd effectively be doing by removing the template, b/c now when the number changes someone will have to sift through pages to make all the idiotic changes. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point I'm trying to make is that the number should be yanked out of every article it appears in, except maybe a couple where it's absolutely required. And if it isn't in a lot of articles, there won't be a lot of changes. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that :) what i'm saying is that even if the template was only used in 4 articles it would still be useful because we'd be SURE that they were accurate. Plus, if someone down the road was to write an article or find an appropriate section to add the number to, we wouldn't have to worry about one flying under the radar when the numbers change. Additionally, the template is used in the portal, a few WP pages, and in many talk pages (ok, talk pages prolly don't need to retain temporal accuracy). By saying that an article can can only quote the number of pokemon if it's "absolutely necessary" is making a grand requirement over any pgae that could potentially be written. Hey, when Nintendo says they're done and no more pokemon will be made, we can go through and rm it, but for now it's safest for the sake of accuracy that we keep it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to weigh in on deleting this, but I am going to side with the stylistic side opposed to including the number in every article. Elements aren't defined by the number of types of elements; it's not relevant to each individual of the set how many the set has in total, whether you're talking about chemical elements, presidents, ships, or Pokemon. The only exceptions are ones where the number tells you something significant about the item itself, like a ship that's the only member of its class. It's just part of a larger attempt to bulk up each article with irrelevant and redundant information to hide the lack of out-of-universe importance and data for many pokemon. All that needs to be said is "X is a Pokemon." If someone needs to know what a Pokemon is, they can look at the pokemon article and see that it's one of 493 fictional species. It all leads people away from the real key information, like when was it introduced, what importance does it have, and how can I kill it if it comes back as a zombie. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% agreed on that -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria
• Delete per Night Gyr. >Radiant< 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The arguments above only says that it's unnecessary to have a number on every single page for each Pokemon article there is. I neither disagree nor agree to this. However, that doesn't provide enough justification for this template to be deleted, and as mentioned above many other articles, non-article pages and templates still use this template, and some new articles in the future may use this template too. It makes updating articles so much easier. Imagine how messy it will be on Wikipedia when one article mentions there are only 250 Pokemon in total (people forgot to update this page), and the next article that just got updated mentions there are 493? It'd be worse if Nintendo decides to add more in the future, we will have different pages showing different numbers. We cannot stop people from putting the total number of Pokemon in their (existing or new) articles, and this doesn't necessarily have to be on the first line on each Pokemon page as most people argues above. Someone mentioned above, "if it isn't in a lot of articles, there won't be a lot of changes", but who can guarantee that it won't be in a lot of articles? Those who argue the template is "unnecessary" has not given, in my opinion, a proper valid reason why. As those who said "the drawbacks of a template like this outweigh the benefits", what IS the actual drawback of having a template like this existing on Wikipedia (besides Vandalism)? What is wrong with having an extra template that actually serves its purpose? I don't mind having a template for the total number of digimons or periodic elements if it makes things easier. Pikablu0530 14:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need a template for this. Just put the correct number on the Pokemon article and update that. You don't need the number elsewhere. The template is enabling and encouraging this number to be put on every single Pokemon article, which is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think all Pokemon need this info in their article, but the template is put to good use in other places and on other namespaces, so I see no reason it should be deleted. The template is a little silly, but it's still got a purpose. -- Kicking222 14:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Night Gyr AdamSmithee 14:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pikablu0530 and Kicking222. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 14:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to weak keep per Zappernapper. BUT GET THIS TOSH OUT OF POKESTART!!! Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I support the use of this template for forward compatibility. After all, there are more useless templates out there than this one... Danielsavoiu 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zappernapper and Danielsavoiu. --Sparky Lurkdragon 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and lock so no shitty vandaledits come on. Toastypk 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful on many Pokemon pages, whether or not it should be kept on each individual page (I think it should). Protect the fucking thing. Vandalism is not a reason for deletion. You know better than that. --- RockMFR 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move this to the proper place, except I don't know which one you intended. Anyway, to answer you, I didn't intend to say vandalism was a reason for deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm dumb >_< --- RockMFR 21:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Detele. The guidelines say to avoid adding information to articles that may become quickly outdated. Nuff said. Kaldari 22:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, otherwise over 500 articles would have to be updated whenever the number is increased. Templates exist to save time. --Cat out 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do 500 articles need to mention that there are 500 Pokemon characters in existence? As was mentioned above, this information is relevent to only a very small number of article and otherspace pages. Resolute 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please read the above discussion before mindlessly voting. —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, valuable (if inventive) use of template that doesn't harm WP in any way, and helps prevent articles from becoming outdated. Whether it is used in the main body, or the opening, of each article, is irrelevant to its usefulness overall. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, individual Pokemon articles don't need to define "Pokemon" to this level of detail, thus obviating the objection to changing all instances of the number of Pokemon. Powers ^T 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This template will be useful for when the next set of games is released and we have another 200ish Pokémon to deal with, or when the next movie comes out and they show an entirely new Pokémon that's not in the games yet (the first movie had Marill, Snubbull, and Donphan in it and the second movie focused on Lugia before Pokémon Gold and Silver came out, and Latias and Latios were revealed in Pokémon Heroes which was before Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire were released). Whether or not it's needed on each and every article for a species is another issue, that will be dealt with with the deletion of ((Pokestart)) as stated below.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these articles don't use the Pokestart template. Anyway, I don't see how it would be useful for the set of games. Where does this number belong except on the main Pokemon article? If you want the number somewhere, why not put it in the Pokeinfobox? —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Really now, isn't the very fact that this information is so volatile an argument against including it in articles, instead of an argument that we should use a template for it? A printed copy of an article shouldn't suddenly become incorrect when the next expansion is released. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks as though a lot of people want to keep this template, but if it's ruled to be deleted, is it possible to have all the instances of this template substituted? --Brandon Dilbeck 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of this discussion seems to be moving towards whether the number should be included at all, rather than whether we should have a template for it. It would make no sense at all to delete this template and then subst it in hundreds of articles. --- RockMFR 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I say Keep, but limit use. The Pokenum temp doesn't really add anything to the articles on individual Pokes, but it would fit in other Pokémon-related articles. -Jeske ^{(Complaints Dept.)} 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful for reducing maintainance on Pokemon-related articles, and if it is being used in too many Pokemon articles that is a style/content problem in those articles. —Dgies^t c 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The number is, largely, relevent and repeatedly referenced, for better or worse. Vandalism and usages aside, the template seems to be okay. In the same spirit as Wikipedia's attempts to remain verifibly accuracy and up to date, the template is a good one. I'd only recommend that it be held to higher standards. Semi-protect it and add citation for the number. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Templates shouldn't write articles, and an exact number of Pokémon is more cruft than needed. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but limit use as per Jeske Couriano. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 23:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I can see this as a useful tool, just leave it semi protected for established users to edit. Oh, and move to Template:Pokénum. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is oftenly used enough and I can just imagine what deleting it would do >_< scary thought. Matty-chan 13:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the above discussion about appropriate uses of this template. Also, there are simple, automated systems for handling the deletion of templates, categories, etc. —Centrx→talk • 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep saves updating 493 pages whenever a new game is released. Protect if necessary to avoid vandalism. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't need the number at all. —Centrx→talk • 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appropriate time saving use of a template. --70.48.69.236 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but don't open every single pokémon article with it. It's pretty silly to do so, and if anyone cared about the number they would be far more likely to check a main pokémon article. The template should be used on just those articles, or in other places if deemed appropriate. -masamunemaniac 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, there are roughly 500 articles which use the pokenum template. Removing it and replacing it with numbers will create problems when the next generation rolls around, and all 500 articles would have to be updated for every single Pokemon slowly and meticulously revealed.--Nintenfreak 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the above discussion and/or the template talk page. They don't need numbers at all, and having these numbers is not encyclopedic for several reasons. —Centrx→talk • 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blow me, like you're one to talk. You created the PokeStart template which just plain sucks. Oh, I suppose if numbers aren't encyclopedic, I can go to List of Stars with Extrasolar Planets and just delete every fucking piece of information there, aside for the star name and number of planets. You're a genius. --Nintenfreak 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nin, that's way out of line. Whatever you feelings you have about either template, don't attack your fellow users. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• general response - It has been stated several times that pokenum's use on the 493 pages is not a valid reason for keeping it, pls refrain from adding only that to the discussion. if you're here to defend pokenum because it's used on all 400+ articles, pls refrain from posting as that is NOT why we should keep it, and in fact, pokenum may soon only be on a small number of different articles. Also, Centrx, you stated pokenum pokestart isn't used on many pages, actually it is, it's just been subst'd. The volatile nature of the number of pokemon is a good reason to use a template to keep track of of this small amount of simple data because like Ace Class Shadow stated, wikipedia has the obligation to remain as accurate as possible. In this spirit though, i agree that the template would be improved by adding a "noinclude" tagged citation (not every page on wikipedia uses ref tags). Saying that an article shouldn't become inaccurate because of a change in relevant information is logically flawed, should an article on Congress stay exactly the same after every election? I'd also like to remind people that this is not actually a vote to decide how to use the template, just whether or not it violates any wiki guidelines or policies. Stylistic issues need to be either fixed by you or brought to the appropriate project's attention. The fact that all the articles have an almost duplicate lead section is partly due to some overpoliticization of that project. But hopefully these TFDs can help bring in more outsider insight :) ((pokenum)) is at the page where it is because writing e accent aigu is difficult for some people, of course feel free to move it and provide a redirect, it wouldn't really change anything (just fix double redirects). And the other uses for pokenum outside of the main article have been oft discussed, please see my other posts for examples - and the point is moot because, like i said before, by saying you can only use the number in the main article your writing an edict forbiding even the appropriate use of the number elsewhere. (yes, i'm a windbag) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - There are several articles that reference, or future articles that may need to refrence this number. Any article refering to the amount of Pokémon in comparison to something else (in this day and age anyways) would need this template because the number is constantly updated! There are probably more than 500 pages that refer to this number, could you imagine someone having to go through and update each one every time a single, additional Pokémon is added to the Dex? It would take an outrageous amount of time, just to keep the Wikipedia accurate. I'm fairly sure, that this of all things would warrant the keep of this template. NinjaVee 07:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there any reason so many people just completely ignored the arguments and said "Keep because it needs to be updated!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 07:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing that while most people do concede that it has to be taken off the renowned 493 articles, they accept that there are other pages that might need to cite the number of Pokémon. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same reason why some people concede that the template is used on some article pages for encyclopedic purposes and others vote to delete solely citing that the number should not be on every Pokemon article? --151.205.117.245 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think its a good idea.Ajuk 14:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I must admit it is rather silly to paste the number at the begining of every creature article but having the template does facilitate things when new creatures are introduced. And as long as Nintendo exists there will be new Pokémon every so often. -Defunctzombie 06:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per NinjaVee. While I acknowledge the delete arguments presented by the nom vandalism should not be a reason to exclude data or forward compatibility. While we can debate if it is proper or not to include the number of pokemon in every article it does have uses outside of the individual pokepages Ariolander 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A perfectly appropriate use of templates. Protect if necessary. — brighterorange (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When a series has such a legacy; so many titles, it needs to be easy to update. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It provides facts, and will do what is possible to keep them as accurate as possible at all times. Scepia 06:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst but do not delete. Look, when this was implemented, it was important NOT because the number was expected to change in the future, but because it WAS actively changing every few weeks, at some points EVERY DAY! Now, the number is stable, and we don’t need the template. I vote that we recognize this template as a special case, allowing it to exist, but only using it( at least, in its current widespread usage) during that window between the unveiling of each generation’s first new Pokémon, and the confirmation of the generation total upon release of the new games. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the above discussion, I plan to depopulate this template from individual Pokemon articles if this discussion results in the template being kept. I encourage discussion on this. Ral315 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would oppose that. I can give a good number of reasons but I feel this is not the approporate place for it. --Cat out 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not a good idea. Templates are not meant to write articles, and we should not be encouraging a copypaste approach. See somewhat related TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 10#Template:Pokerefs. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several people have written at the Pokémon Collaborative Project and several of the individual Pokémon species articles, explaining that the template is useless and that if people really wanted to know the information in the Pokestart paragraph, they should just click the blue Pokémon wikilink and read about Pokémon there. The grammar in the Pokestart paragraph consists of very long sentences separated by many, many commas and dashes that make it difficult to read smoothly. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Brandon Dilbeck. It is basically a copy paste of an opening paragraph for the main Pokemon article with little direct relevence to the character specific articles. Resolute 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and yank this crap out of the hundreds of Pokemon articles that include it. It's like including a paragraph about how famous shakespeare is in every character from his plays. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The lead for an article on a single Pokemon should be about that Pokemon and, to a lesser extent, about Pokemon in general- not the other way around. -- Kicking222 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Delete, Delete. Not only is this a terrible idea, but it also promotes the use of another bad template: Pokenum. Kaldari 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above. It's not that this template is a terrible idea IMO, but that everyone else has surprisingly valid reasonings behind their votes. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 03:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• no! don't delete! it will ruin the interweb!delete no need for lazy peoples. However, I have one problem, if this is deleted, won't that mean that 493 articles will be without an introduction? We may have to keep this so we can write 493 introductions before deleting.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's substed, and always has been, so there's not a problem there. The introductions can be rewritten later; that's an issue that the editors of the pages will have to take up. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There actually were some pages that were using this without being substed (all fixed now). To the nominator: I'd highly recommend nominating Template:PokePage and the templates transcluded within it after you check and make sure they are all substed. --- RockMFR 05:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • aww... leave PokePage alone (creator). Actually, the whole intro paragraph transclusions was added as an after thought and never the real intent of it. I was waiting for more discussion on the idea of building prose through templates and am not so upset to see the results here, and those templates have been speedy tagged. However I recommend you read this discussion if you weren't aware that there already was any on the subject. I warn you though, it is quite long and skimming it will not be enough. On the other hand, if you are well versed with the discussion, pls feel free to bring up any concerns at ((PokePage))'s talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 06:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was never a fan of the cookie-cutter intro, and I wouldn't care if it stays or goes, but what will you do when it's gone? What will there be instead? Toastypk 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. We can figure that out. Right now, the issue is if this should stay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can have a sample page layout like Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements for standardized sections and content, just cut down on the duplicated boilerplate prose. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's why I didn't nominate ((PokePage)) (other than the fact I forgot about it). Templated layout is a different issue than templated prose. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. You can copy and paste an existing intro already. Why would need to be in template form? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's content in a template. And not good content at that. Delete.Circeus 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Why we need a large, bulky paragraph that describes the entire franchise, where it is unfortunately bland, generic and oh so awfully consistent. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. DanPMK 12:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the point of this template was to save time when people were creating the individual pokemon articles. I feel this should be a sub wikiproject page outside of template namespace. --Cat out 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... The problem is with treating articles as something to be written by template... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Everyone gets the point. The problem is that it is a very bad idea. Resolute 05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment so can someone close this already? there's no actual support. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2006-07 NHL season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template was created for a list of articles documenting results of all games for each month of the NHL season. Those articles were deleted in this AfD debate. With these articles removed, the template becomes redundant with Template:2006-07 NHL season by team, and thus is not needed. --Resolute 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The template is only possibly useful for articles which were deleted, and for good reason. Okay, so I misunderstood there, but it is still redundant. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, superfluous. Punkmorten 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ksy92003 05:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no longer needed --T-rex 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.