< September 13	September 15 >

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 delete. — Malcolm (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A ((db-author)) would be faster. — Edokter • Talk • 20:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If testing, why was the Sandbox not used? Also, if the plan is to reintroduce this template at a later stage, it needs tidying up. Wolf of Fenric 20:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In use, and serves what looks like a very appropriate purpose. Circeus 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when I said "test", I didn't mean I was making a test edit. I asked on the Doctor Who project page(now archived) if we could have season templates, using this as an example. Test was probally the wrong word to use. The sandbox would have been inapropriate, as it is changed reguarly, so would not be around very long. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, I must have missed that entry before it got archived. Wolf of Fenric 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a rare occurance when perusing Doctor Who pages when one wants to leapfrog stories in a given season. In each infobox there is already a link to the next tale and if a reader/editor clicks on the Series # line in said infobox they are taken to the appropriate wikipage where they can chose any of the stories for that season (or any of the 26 original seasons or three, soon to be four, new ones for that matter) thus making this template redundant. Also the box varies between the MoS rules for italics for each story rules tghat apply to the Wikiproject DW. My apologies because I know that the work that went into this template was well meaning but it is just one more thing cluttering up the bottom of DW pages for me. MarnetteD | Talk 10:34, 18 September 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 section.

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 mark as historical. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template without any transclusions. --MZMcBride 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Circeus 20:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as historical (I guess), because it was once used to select articles for WP:V0.5. It is superseded by ((WP:1.0)) and ((0.7 set nom)), but is better left used due to historical purposes. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:52, 14 September 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 section.

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 mark as historical. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template without any transclusions. --MZMcBride 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aren't we up to version 1.0? Circeus 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, outdated template, confusing to those who come across it. Sebi _[talk] 05:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're up to Version 0.7 (and which needs more reviewers, btw)... but again, as above, it's better to edit this one and tag it historical. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:19, 16 September 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 section.

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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overbearing, unnecessary fork of ((TOCUSStates)). Circeus 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to say that I disagree. I originally made this TOC for List of museums in the United States. I agree that it is large, but I think that the US Map is far more helpful than overbearing. It allows users to easily click the state visually instead of reading through a list. I didn't base it on ((TOCUSStates)); I wrote this TOC from scratch.

Before I made this TOC a template, I encountered a Wikimedia bug in < imagemap > that prevented anchor links from working. I discussed this problem on the help page and used this very TOC as a reason that it was important to fix that bug as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the bug was fixed throughout all Wikimedia allowing me to use this TOC.

Also note that the US Map can be scaled even though it contains an image map. The image map will scale with the image and the image will not loose quality from resizing because it is an SVG-type image.

I definitely would not have spent the extraordinary amount of time it took to make this if I thought it was unnecessary. I also have applied this TOC to several pages on Wikipedia in order to test how well it works with other pages, and it has proven to hold up pretty well. Here and there I've had to zap little bugs.

I encourage people to improve this TOC, but I really don't think it should be removed altogether. Some of the pages I applied it to may not have been large enough to justify this TOC, so possibly another solution would be to leave it on very large lists and remove it from some of the shorter lists I may have applied it to. I do believe that this TOC is inappropriate for smaller pages. I had not considered that during my testing process.

Another point - this TOC was originally not a template; it was actually part of the List of museums in the United States page. This TOC is incredibly huge because of the image map and by removing it from that page and placing it in a template, this greately reduced the file size.

I believe that I have provided several good reasons why this template should remain on Wikipedia.

Ben Boldt 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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 section.

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(C-Town) 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire for the same reasons we nuked Template:scrollref. Circeus 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually usefull for looong pages. Unlike scrollref, it doesn't "hide" info. — Edokter • Talk • 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete scrolling TOCs are inaccessable to some readers, and they are unnecessary (a) we already have a hide function, b) scrolling is annoying and a TOC that shows up in full is much more useful c) if an article contains too many sections, prune them d) it is a subjective call when to use this template and when not to). Melsaran (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes. I had forgotten about the TOC being already collapsible, because I never do that XD Circeus 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Melsaran's reasoning. Plus, the way the template looks in a article doesn't sit right with me, looks sort of un-wikipedia-like. Sebi _[talk] 05:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a big difference between a TOC and a ref list; refs are fundamental content for us, while a TOC is auxiliary navigation. Thus, I think the nom is based on a false comparison. As for accessibility issue, 7 years ago I was sure that that was true, but 2 years ago I worked briefly with modern accessibility software for the blind that had no more problems with scroll boxes than it had with big tables. It's not an area I keep up with regularly, but my sense of is that what is "bad" for accessibility has been changing a lot in the last few years. Are you sure this is a current problem, or is it a legacy thing? Also, I personally find it much much more usable (I use it on my personal talk page); I no longer have to use a mouse at all to navigate through the TOC to where I want to go. (Using Mac FireFox, your mileage may vary:) Page load, TAB, then the box is selected and I can use the arrow keys to scroll or jump to the end, or use "find-escape-return" to drill into a link in the TOC. Keeping my hand off the mouse makes for much faster navigation. With a standard TOC, "tab" won't select the TOC and a "find" can't be scoped to just the TOC; it's usually faster to grab the mouse. Studerby 10:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it's only used in one article suggests that it isn't all that necessary anyway. And there's better ways to deal with troublesome TOCs - move them over to the right of the screen, or if they're causing too much trouble just remove them entirely. This scrolling emplate looks, IMHO, a bit crappy. PC78 10:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is useful for long toc that cant be replaced by compacttoc cause its not alphebetized75.57.98.66 14:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In such cases, either the article was poorly built to begin with, or ((TOClimit)) or ((CompactTOC10)) can be used. Circeus 14:56, 20 September 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 section.

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 delete. matt br 08:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category which this template supposedly puts articles under does not exist, so I have to assume that this template is not being used. Can anyone demonstrate its need? --Vossanova ^o< 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PC-centric. You're right, it's unused. In addition, I don't see a big problem with "PC-centric" articles on Wikipedia. Delete. szyslak 10:40, 15 September 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 section.

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 delete all except ((TOCgeohack)). matt br 08:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A long list of unused or single-use templates cluttering Category: TOC templates, many now replaced with more general templates. Circeus 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOCgeohack is used on Template:GeoTemplate and another template. It's preferable to keep it separate from Template:GeoTemplate, Template:GeoTemplate already being quite large. To make this clear, it could be moved to Template:GeoTemplate/TOC. -- User:Docu
- It should be easy enough to create an ad hoc content table with ((CompactTOC10)). I used that to replace the Romanian, Polish and Serbo-Croatian single-use templates. Circeus 03:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ((TOCgeohack)), as it is used by the ((coord)) geographical tagging templates. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and it's used on the toolserver. Actually the TfD message there is quite annoying. --32X 18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ((TOCgeohack)) --Steinn inn 14:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ((TOCgeohack)) and find out how to make sure it is not flagged as "unused" again. Carcharoth 15:30, 20 September 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 section.

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 keep/withdawn. matt br 09:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a cruel, cruel (albeit unintentional) joke, though its intended purpose is innocent enough. The problem is that other editors besides the intended recipient will see this message and (if they are uninformed) may believe that they are being addressed and have messages. If this is kept, it should be rewritten in the third person (not the 2nd person) and should look very different from a standard "You have new messages" box. Maybe make it purple or something.—-User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I found this template incredibly handy when someone posted a message on my talk page, I replied a few hours/days after, and I wanted to tell the person that I had replied to the message. I think it was meant to look like the "you got new messages" box, because it serves the same purpose, but if you disagree with the colours because it may cause confusion, alter the template (or discuss the change on its talk page), you don't need TFD for that. Melsaran (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire purpose of this template (I presume) is to seize the user's attention in precisely the same manner that wp's "New Messages" banner does. I disagree with that purpose (thus my nomination) because there's no way you can target it to just one user. My objection is not limited to the box color.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then what about changing it to something like "((PAGENAME)), you have new messages (...)"? That should do the trick. Melsaran (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator. While centainly not intended as 'cruel' joke, The Fat Man does point out a minor flaw (namely that other users think it may be intended for them) that I had not considered. I have addressed this issue. As for deletion, the template is fairly new, but everyone whom I use it with, starts using it in their turn. It absolutely serves it's purpose (at least until MediaWiki comes up with it's own similair notification system). Naturally, I say keep. — Edokter • Talk • 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I understand the nominator's original objection, the amended version (which I've just tested) disambiguates to whom the template is addressed. And it's one I plan t--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)o make use of in future, if kept. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm puzzled as to why this is needed. The act of placing this template on a user's talk page will cause the "you have new messages" banner to appear, yet if that user then clicked on the "last changes" link in the new messages banner, all they'd see is the template name, which in itself wouldn't give them any information. Second, imagine the confusion if everybody started using this template, and everybody starts peppering my talk page with a whole bunch of orange banners. If you truly feel compelled to tell someone else that you've responded to their message on your own talk page, what's wrong with making a new section to the effect of "FYI, I responded to your message on your talk page" (which also causes the "new messages" banner to appear). Neil916 (Talk) 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the color is an objection, I can make it look like ((message)). But please no aqua! I have been reverting that color three times now. While WP:OWNish, I can't stand that color. — Edokter • Talk • 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template, but edit it to address Fat Man's concerns. There's no overwhelming need for deletion here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy keep. Template has been edited to address nominator's concerns. No other reason for deletion. Harryboyles 05:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. While I still question the utility of this template (see Neil916's comments above), I no longer have significant objections to the format or wording of the template (I, would, however prefer that its message be in the 3rd person; e.g., "User X has new messages on Y's talk page").--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:56, 20 September 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 section.

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 widthdrawn, per explanations by template creator. Gracenotes^T § 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template seems obscure, and its two transclusions (Luiz Carlos Nascimento Júnior and Thiago Heleno Henrique Ferreira) shed no light on the matter. I'm not sure how this could be used within acceptable practice and policy, and it is also a bit vague. Gracenotes^T § 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the template is to tag a page as an inprogress revision of another. It is particularly useful for articles needing considerable revising that would have to go through much drafting and re-drafting - an editor might not want this bare-bones process to be displayed on the main article itself, and would therefore create a draft page under the main title. But that page in the beginning might not look much like an article and might be immediately marked for deletion. The tag is meant to explain what the purpose of the page is to be. For example:

The article HackThisSite was nominated for deletion and it was decided that it should be kept and revised. Being that much editing was needed, it was fully drafted first, here.

Detail:

Draft page (Look throught its history from start to finish to get a complete idea)
HackThisSite article before rev
Current incarnation: HackThisSite

Note that the two examples you pointed out are using the template wrongly. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 13:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the explanation provided by Kerowen demonstrates a valid use for this template. Neil916 (Talk) 06:04, 14 September 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 section.

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(C-Town) 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same logic with which Category:Articles with too many sections was deleted in this CFD debate applies to these templates, mainly related to the subjectivity of the phrase "too many sections". In most transclusions, there don't appear to be any problems (except in *shudder* List of Disgaea characters). Gracenotes^T § 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a recently created template or two. Anyway, maybe it should be reworded as some articles have some sections with one sentence in and these could easily be merged, if they have not been expanded. Simply south 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Yes, the templates are about two months old.) Yours is a good idea, but the current templates (and their names) don't suffice to explain that problem. Perhaps a sort of section merge template could be created? ((mergesection)) and ((mergesections)) already exist, but it seems that those apply only to merging sections across two or more pages. Gracenotes^T § 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trying to do a trial at User:Simply south/Condense-section Simply south 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant over-uglycleanuptagsonencyclopediaarticlesization. What is "too many sections"? I don't think this is a significant problem that requires an ugly tag to be sticked on articles. If an article really has another section header after every three lines, remove them yourself. Melsaran (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is no universally accepted definition for what "too many" encompasses, and also because I am not sure this so-called issue is important enough to warrant a tag. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,but merge and and move to ((condense)) per Simply South. We certainly do have such article that are overly divided, and this is an appropriate way to take care of them as ((summary)) or ((shorten)) just won't do the trick. It's just forked and poorly worded. Circeus 16:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessively specific, and someone who places this really should just sofixit. This is the kind of template that encourages tagging over meaningful editing, making articles messy(er) in the process. Titoxd makes a good point that this is entirely editorial judgement in most cases; this is either for the talk page or the edit button. Splash - tk 00:33, 22 September 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 section.

September 14

Template:Doctor Who season 1

Template:0.5 set nom

Template:0.5 nom

Template:ListByUSStateTOC

Template:TOC-scrolling

Template:PC-centric

Unused TOC templates

Template:Talkback

Template:Isrev

"Too many sections" templates