Overly specialized; puts disambig msg on top, before the useful info. The world does not revolve around NYC (despite its residents' contrary opinion). Niteowlneils 19:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems that redirs to Template:NYCS disambig, which is included in this nomination. Niteowlneils 21:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Subway information is already out of hand. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. – Netoholic @ 20:53, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure what part of the general knowledge base policy would cover subay articles. Snowspinner 21:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is the kind of stuff that makes me assume bad faith. --SPUI (talk) 22:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fort Totten (Washington Metro) --SPUI (talk) 23:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Niteowlneils saw fit to remove it from everywhere it was used, and I'm not going to be making these disambig pages any more. --SPUI (talk) 22:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 13:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

                            ___________________________
                   /|  /|  |   View the history of    |
                   ||__||  |   this template; this    |
                  /   O O\__   text has been removed  |
                 /          \  to prevent             |
                /      \     \  personal attacks      |
               /   _    \     \ ----------------------
              /    |\____\     \     ||             
             /     | | | |\____/     ||             
            /       \|_|_|/   |    __||             
           /  /  \            |____| ||             
          /   |   | /|        |      --|            
          |   |   |//         |____  --|            
   * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/             
*-- _--\ _ \     //           |                     
  /  _     \\ _ //   |        /                     
*  /   \_ /- | -     |       |                      
  *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________          

ORIGINAL:

                            ___________________________
                   /|  /|  |                          |
                   ||__||  |       Please don't       |
                  /   O O\__           feed           |
                 /          \       the trolls        |
                /      \     \                        |
               /   _    \     \ ----------------------
              /    |\____\     \     ||             
             /     | | | |\____/     ||             
            /       \|_|_|/   |    __||             
           /  /  \            |____| ||             
          /   |   | /|        |      --|            
          |   |   |//         |____  --|            
   * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/             
*-- _--\ _ \     //           |                     
  /  _     \\ _ //   |        /                     
*  /   \_ /- | -     |       |                      
  *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________          

HISTORY:

• 16:53, 20 Feb 2005 Oven Fresh (I should readd the original template while it is for deletion so people can see it; however, I've removed troll-related text) [replaced with text on top]
• 16:30, 20 Feb 2005 Oven Fresh [added ((tfd))
• 16:30, 20 Feb 2005 Oven Fresh (Uhoh, I can't put delete without candidating all the pages it's used on for deletion...) [blanked]
• 16:29, 20 Feb 2005 Oven Fresh (Blanking to remove personal attacks and adding ((delete)))
• 15:04, 20 Feb 2005 JarlaxleArtemis

Insta-personal attack generator. View history. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete – Netoholic @ 19:34, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Delete – umm, definitely POV with respect to all potential content Courtland 19:49, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons noted by User:Oven Fresh. Psychonaut 12:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move to BJAODN. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 13:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pity there isn't a speedy for this. (Redact personal attacks?) - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Currently a redirect to Template:Physics-stub, which was created since "phys-stub" was ambiguous (physiology? physics? etc). Since this is redundant, all articles have already been changed to use the new template. --jag123 17:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Ambiguous and unnecessary. BlankVerse ∅ 05:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(and redirects MediaWiki:A, CapA, E, I, O, U, Shravakayana) More unused accented character templates. In September most of these were replaced with a notice saying they're deprecated. Goplat 00:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Sorry folks, you all had your days of glory. I miss you being there to share my joy as I put in those accented characters, but it's time to let go. It's time to move on. You, brother templates, will always have a special place in my heart; but now it's time to let your children take over. It's time for the circle of life to perform its rituals, and us to cherish the memories. You have brought such prettiness to articles throughout wikipedia, and for that, I am grateful. It is now time for you to officially pass the torch on to your children, and hope to be remembered lovingly by Wikipedians worldwide. I love you all!!! -Frazzydee|✍ 14:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still used on a few pages. Needs to replaced with Template:military aircraft by decade2.

• It looks like this is as far as it can go with respect to replacement. What remains are User talk:Rlandmann (the person who nominated the replacement), Wikipedia:Templates for deletion (this page) and Category:U.S. military reconnaissance aircraft 1930-1939 ... the last is bizarre to me. The Category page uses the new template, but for some reason it appears on the "what links here" for both the old and the new templates. Perhaps an admin can take a look and see what might be going on there? Courtland 00:40, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

• • Seems to be a database glitch; it's not a links table flush issue like the one below. Deleted it. Noel (talk) 15:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Vfd-or, Template:Vfd-vp, Template:Vfd-sp, Template:Vfd-int, Template:Vfd-pov, Template:Vfd-pe, Template:Vfd-list, Template:Vfd-tg, Template:Vfd-dir, Template:Vfd-uv, Template:Vfd-pn, Template:Vfd-vn, Template:Vfd-rec, Template:Vfd-dd, Template:Vfd-band

• All related deletion templates are currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes. Specifically, that page discusses whether said templates should be used on VfD discussions. If the outcome of that discussion is that they should not, it would only make sense if all these templates are deleted.
• In a week time, 31 people have expressed strong opinions against using these criteria boxes on VfD, and not a single person has spoken up in their support. Consensus seems to be that they are annoying, diverting from the real discussion, and responsible for substantial page size increase. Since they are not going to be used on VfD, and by design cannot be used anywhere else, they should probably all be deleted. Radiant! 18:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all! BlankVerse ∅ 07:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes. Note that ((tfd)) has only just now been applied to the templates. —Korath (Talk) 07:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looking at the votes, it looks like consensus is overwhelmingly against these boxes. If they're not allowed to be used on VFD, then it only makes sense to just get rid of them completely. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will "dustbin" these in a couple of days; I'd do it now, but the notice has only been on them since Mar 16. Noel (talk) 13:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT: These boxes should be subst'd to the pages they were on. The VFD folks can remove them from there if necessary (I believe they can remove them on sight), but we shouldn't interfere with VFD. -Frazzydee|✍ 06:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had checked many of them when I left the comment above, and none were in use, so that's not a problem. What is a problem is that according to Wikipedia:VfD criteria templates, there are a bunch more that aren't listed here, and don't have notices. I will add the notices, and list them here too. Noel (talk) 15:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I was misled: what seemed (according to Wikipedia:VfD criteria templates) to be other templates that were part of this whole package:

Template:vfd-iup, Template:vfd-df, Template:vfd-cr, Template:vfd-ext, Template:vfd-faq, Template:vfd-mem, Template:vfd-news, Template:vfd-gen, Template:vfd-media, Template:vfd-source

were in fact not templates at all, but rather in-line boxes. So there's nothing left to add. Noel (talk) 18:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(template pictured on right ("...part of the series Politics of the R. of Ireland")

Unused copy of Template:PoliticsRofI. Goplat 18:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all (from WGS84, ending here). -Frazzydee|✍ 04:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An article's context should be made plainly obvious in the actual text of the article, not in an obtrusive template. This is at best redundant with the intro to any article that would use it, and at the absolute worst an excuse to omit context in the article itself. -Sean Curtin 01:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Very weak keep: The text for this template is awkward and confusing, so it desperately needs to be rewritten. Furthermore, articles in the Wikipedia should not need to have such a template. On the other hand, when I've looked through the stubs and substubs on the Wikipedia, I've stumbling upon way too many bits of fancruft that did not make it clear from the beginning that the article was about a fictional setting, so maybe this template really is necessary. BlankVerse ∅ 06:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As Sean Curtin says, please slap a ((fiction)) on any such articles that you encounter. Uncle G 06:17, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
• Delete - the style manuals already say we need to make this clear in the introduction. This is a little too much clutter. – Netoholic @ 13:26, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  • The problem with the Wikipedia style manual is that both Wikipedia newbies and veteran editors rarely follow the manual that closely—except when they want to quote from it as a blunt weapon in an edit war. I think that if the Fictional Setting template is kept, that it should be made clear that it should only be used when the article does not make it clear that it is about a fictional setting, and then only kept until the article has been rewritten, so the template will be essentially a specialized {attention} template for problematic fancruft. BlankVerse ∅ 20:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That's what Template:Fiction is for; we don't need a more specialized version of that cleanup tag. I haven't checked all of the articles that use the template in question, but the ones that I checked already started with words to the effect of "in fiction context X, [aricle name] is...". -Sean Curtin 23:20, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• It's an awkward and clunky attempt at a "get out of jail free" template for articles that haven't actually been written to adhere to the guidelines on checking one's fiction. Going by the titles of the articles that use it, I don't think that we'll lose valuable information if we replace all instances of this with ((fiction)). Delete. Uncle G 06:17, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
• Keep Speaking from my own use of it, this template is good for making a clear distinction between articles relating to a fictional universe that are about the fiction itself and those that are about real-world matters relating to that setting (publication information, game rules, fanclubs, etc.). And as has been pointed out, ((fiction)) is a cleanup tag, and this is not. If this is deleted, then the references should not automatically be changed to ((fiction)). None of my pages need it. --WestonWyse 01:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The article itself should already make the distinction between fictional and real-world subjects. The template is just an obtrusive way of repeating the distinction. -Sean Curtin 18:58, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Conti|✉ 18:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Mrwojo 14:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Overhaul It is sort of annoying and perhaps it should always be redundant, but the nature of these fantasy universes can easily confuse. They tend to be so complete, so detailed, so patently well-thought-out. I think the word fantastic should be used, not fictional; but perhaps that's mere pedantry – (science) fiction revolves around one or two extraordinary assumptions, while fantasy swims in a sea of them. The word "fantastic" is correct, but the phrase of the fantasy universe X will probably get the point across better to most readers.

Certainly there is a distinction among fiction (or fantasy) itself, which is not reality; factual summaries of what others have written in a fictional vein; and factual statements about those writers and their works. Huckleberry Finn is an example of the first, and belongs (I imagine) in Wikibooks; an article about "The Royal Nonesuch" itself is of the second; and a biography of Mark Twain of the third.

The matter is compounded by the blurred line between fiction and history, and the similarity in style between many fantasy universe settings and true history. I might read pretty far into a description of a human character in Tolkien's Middle Earth before wondering what in heck a hobbit was (assuming I were as ignorant of Tolkien as I am of World of Darkness). It would not help me to see an inline disclaimer that the article was fictional if I thought the word "fiction" simply meant "literature" – which, although fictional in nature, is often the best factual history we have of ancient times.

The ((fiction)) template does not suffice; it implies an article is broken, but hardly applies to a well-written explanation of (say) Middle Earth. Most articles receiving this template should simply be deleted.

On the other hand I don't see much need for dozens of stubby articles about individual denizens of this or that fantasy universe; I'd much rather see them collected into single articles, one per universe. Then, a nice ((Fantasy universe)) template can simply notice the reader that everything that follows is a serious reporting of a silly world. In fact, I'm minded to rummage through Wikipedia:How to create policy on this.

 – Xiong (talk) 06:31, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

I think the kind of template you're suggesting is a bad idea. We shouldn't be sticking templates on articles telling users what the contents of those articles are when the articles themselves should already be saying what they're about. It's like suggesting that all lists bear a template that says "This is a list." when that fact is apparent upon cursory inspection. I am in support of merging stubby fiction articles into one page, though. -Sean Curtin 00:37, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. When the fictitiousness of an article's subject is not clear, use template ((fiction)). When the fictitiousness of an article's subject is clear, no template is needed. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 14:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant and makes it seem like a really big deal that people should know about before reading even the first word of the article. It's sufficient for it to be mentioned in the intro, and it's usually in the first section. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Currently used by a grand total of zero articles. If Template:Substub is pointless, then PBS Substub is doubly so. Everything that should get this template (if there is anything, which is another matter) should either just get Template:Substub or Template:PBS stub (and given that the latter of these is used by a grand total of 14 articles, perhaps it should be considered here, too). Grutness|^hello? 06:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Horribly POV title (PBS is a TLA, and IMO should be a disambiguation page). We don't need categorised substubs. Substubs we need (so that they can be improved) and category stubs we need (for reasons discussed elsewhere). This template we do not. Alphax ^τεχ 07:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think you're right about not needing this template. Also, as a guideline perhaps => no categorical substubs; either substub, general stub, or categorical stub. Courtland 13:29, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
• Delete. Easy call on this one. Eliminate Fawcett5 03:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Being used to harrass VfD nominators. VfD nominators are giving their reasons for deletion, others are coming along after the fact and adding this template in order to put the template adder's opinion that the VfD nomination is bogus. The person who adds this template has the right to discuss in the VfD vote whether they think the nomination is appropriate. This Template is not following the Wikipedia dictum of "assume good faith". RickK 06:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, see Template:VfD criteria templates. – Netoholic @ 06:48, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  • The above does not address the appropriateness of this template. This, along with all the others, was foisted upon the community without discussion, and all of them are inappropriate, but especially this one. RickK 08:14, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal-attack magnet. —Korath (Talk) 09:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both this and the other templates, in favour of the existing ways of expressing opinions on articles that have evolved in VFD over time, that are not rigid pigeonholes like this but are instead flexible enough to allow for the real world fact that no two people exactly agree on what belongs here and what does not, and that allow one to address individual articles individually, and without impugning those who think differently to onesself. Moreover bear in mind when reading both this and Wikipedia:VfD criteria templates the wise words of BM, Dpbsmith, Johnleemk, and Korath written at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#How to make VFD of manageable size and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Notability not a criterion for deletion.3F Uncle G 14:17, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
• Strong concur with Korath and UncleG, delete. Radiant! 16:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per the reasoning of myself and others at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#How to make VFD of manageable size. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of these templates. Well-intentioned, but they only bog down VfD. -Sean Curtin 02:32, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I took a first look at this template and I've two comments. First, it seems that a couple of the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes might be suitable for raising awareness that the deletion is not without disagreement. Second, I might be less prone to flag "delete" if either the template were in use (it does not appear to be) or the wording of the flag were conciliatory rather than confrontational. Courtland 18:01, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• Delete. Per comments by User:RickK and others. BlankVerse ∅ 06:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, temporily (until at least [last comment dd. march 6, + 7 days=] march 13) until discussion on talk:vfd is over (duh), THEN delete and inline the template contents there, to avoid removing context. Until then, just rv anyone who includes this template on vfd, since this is a policy that's still under discussion. See also the section below.
• Delete. If there are questions about the given reasons and why it should be deleted, it can be discussed. It's not hard to ask. :) --Sketchee 16:48, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Summary: Delete - 8, Keep - 0. Consensus to Delete. Courtland 02:50, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

This template is futile. It is not exhaustive, and has no chance of ever becoming exhaustive, due to the sheer number of Nintendo titles, and the thousands of "items" found in these. Besides, the assumption that anyone looking at Mr. Saturn would be interested in Rare Candy is rather dubious. Phils 11:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with savageness. Snowspinner 22:00, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - SimonP 16:37, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It reeks of "game guide content", and it should be on wikibooks instead - no wait, we don't have a wikibook on it, and it would be inappropriate to have a template on it there... kelvSYC 19:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's pretty silly. Delete. Andre (talk) 21:43, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems pretty broad. If we really wanted it, then Pokeball would go with Pokemon and Fire Flower with Mario. Items ... from games ... that were made by Nintendo? That's a Delete. (Or move to Universe Earth Video Game Nintendo Items!) ;D --Sketchee 06:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as really bad idea - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as exceptionally hard to maintain. Alphax ^τεχ 07:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Addaone 15:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with the votes on top of me. I want Wikipedia to make more templates since templates can be useful for articles. Pre-made templates are easier to add than making text in conjunction with difficult styling when writing an article. --GoofyGuy 02:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Modify. If it were localised to each franchise I could see it being useful, but in its current state I say it should be deleted. Eszett
• Delete, scope too broad to be useful. -Sean Curtin 01:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

この記事translated内の文字の大部分は、日本語です。日本語版のウィキペディアに翔訳する際は、文字の見直しを行ってください。

The category this is in was listed for deletion and someone there told us that this is basically a request for an article to be translated into Japanese. Doesn't seem to be what we're about at the English Wikipedia. (And it's not being used.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - innappropriate for en wiki. Fawcett5 03:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete – all articles, in every language, on every topic, by default, include an imaginary and implict plea to be translated into every other possible language. – Xiong (talk) 03:52, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

• Delete, it would require a ((Japanese translation)) for itself ;o) -Frazzydee|✍ 04:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This template is 3-branch structure centric. There exist separations of powers that aren't defined by these three branches (e.g. parliament that elects exective w/ independent judiciary). This template only has three links and could just be included in a "see also" section, or preferably, have those links included in the text as part of a discussion of the separation of powers.--Jiang 10:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The three articles that this links to already have inline links to one or both of the other two in their text. At the very most, these are simply "See also" section entries. And as Jiang mentions, the three-branch structure is only one possibility under the separation of powers doctrine. The Republic of China has a five-branch structure, for example. Uncle G 17:19, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete but replace. I agree, this is too limiting to handle the variety of branch structures out there. I recommend deletion of this template and replacement with a "Branches_of_Government" template that does contain the spectrum of branches and would be more generally applicable. Courtland 05:32, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete, admittedly sight unseen, but for the obvious reasons cited above. – Xiong (talk) 03:48, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

This template is much too large. maybe split into four smaller templates or convert entirely to categories. prefer latter. this is an abuse of templates--Jiang 06:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Looking at a handful of articles picked at random, I find several like Michal Serwacy Wisniowiecki, where the collection of navigational boxes at the bottom is bigger than the actual article proper. At the very least, these templates should be shrunk. This one should be shrunk to a navigation template comprising just four hyperlinks to categories (something like, although possibly not exactly, Category:Grand Chancellors of the Kingdom of Poland, Category:Grand Chancellors of Lithuania, Category:Deputy Chancellors the Kingdom of Poland, and Category:Deputy Chancellors of Lithuania) for example. (And yes, categories can have redlinks. They just go in a "to-do" section on the category page or its talk page.) However, even that would be duplicating what would also be automatically present in the list of categories at the bottom of the article. Categorize, either partially (as described) or (for preference) completely. Uncle G 03:43, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
• Delete this and all the other massive Polish leader templates. - SimonP 20:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Split and keep. I find those templates much more useful then categories, but as with most Commonwealth (mind you, not Polish...) officials, there were four offices (Crown/Lithuania, Grand/Small). They should be split each into a separate template, this should reduce the template size by half (or 3/4 in some cases). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Large templates are always more useful than categories. Categories only list in alphabetical order; templates can list in chronological order or in order of priority, etc. The longer the list, the more important it is got the it in the right order. So huge lists like this are better served by templates. And having all the links on every page is more convenient than having to go to another page to find them. (I mean, does anyone ever choose to use Categories to navigate!?! If you want delete something, then delete the categorioes and leave the templates alone!) Miss Pippa 09:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Categories can list in any order one likes with a simple application of the pipe trick. And I notice that whilst you are discussing what templates can do, you aren't discussing what these templates do do, which isn't any of the things that you mention. These templates are not navigational templates. They are stealth categories, that exceed the sizes of the actual articles proper in many cases. And yes, people do use categories for navigation. Uncle G 16:35, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  • What you are proposing, unfortanately, is not what templates were designed for. Specifically, questions two and four at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes are not satisfied, so according to the guidelines, this should be a category. If you want a list, make another article with the list. One chancellor biography will not mention all the other chancellors so the connection is not present.--Jiang 02:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and all the others. Categories, list pages, and succession boxes are the appropriate ways of dealing with these kinds of things. john k 15:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The templates are ridiculously large and bloated, and a category with sucession boxes would be more appropriate. Imagine a template like this for, say, Lord High Treasurers... ugen64 23:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this one, but preserve the contents somewhere so it can be split into 4 different templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, don't split into four templates, put this useful info into a Category page, with subcategories if you insist. – Xiong (talk) 03:11, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

No longer used: Replaced by Template:Akershus to coincide with usage in other Counties of Norway. (Couldn't move since Template:Akershus already existed.) – Egil 07:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 04:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Completely redundant with Template:CompactTOC, and badly named. – Netoholic @ 07:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

• Delete - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What gives? This was just listed (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted#6 February 2005), and it was not deleted. Relisting this this quickly is really unreasonable - what is this, keep relisting it until I get the result I want? Noel (talk) 02:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

non-voting comment: Netoholic, you nominated this for deletion previously ... can we let it sit with the previous decision for a bit bringing it to the fore again; the voting was sparse last time and this time as well, so there really isn't a consensus for deletion, it seems, at this time. By the way, I'm not voting because I don't know enough of the comparative merits of the various TOC templates to be a good judge at this point. Courtland 00:06, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

I agree with both your comments, which is why I left it for so long. If anybody had reservations about it being deleted, they should have spoken up now, as the nomination has been sitting here since February 18. I am deleting both. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Completely redundant with Template:CompactTOC2, and badly named. – Netoholic @ 07:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

• Delete - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ditto comment on entry above. Noel (talk) 02:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A one article template should not exist. It's not wikipedia's business to award people decorative ribbons. --Jiang 02:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I find this redundant to Template:Grand Treasurers of the Crown, which is also on the one article that the Treasurer CC template is on. Zzyzx11 02:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 05:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A short list of a dozen orcs that are mentioned by name in Tolkien's novels (which aren't by far the only place that uses orcs). Might warrant a category, but certainly not a template like this. Radiant! 13:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Snowspinner 14:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Unspeakable. Delete or maybe convert to cat, if the articles don't get merged (as is likely) - David Gerard 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, use Category:Middle-earth Orcs. There are two redirects (Mediaiwiki:orcs and MediaWiki:Orcs) which would need to go as well. – Netoholic @ 19:25, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete - No way that Tolkien's orcs even merit individual articles, so a template is insupportable. Fawcett5 23:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) – In fact, I just noticed that several of the Orc articles are up for Vfd. Fawcett5 23:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP The classic article series box for a complete and limited list of articles. Tolkien's orcs articles merit more development than the present wide spread use of journaling in Wikipedia to cover adult material. The template is a great idea. – John Gohde 14:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. not for templates--Jiang 23:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oversized monstrosity that fails to satisfy criteria at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes: 1) a given article in the series is not likely to mention the article before or after it in the series outside of the box 2) someone will not likely to want to read the articles in this series in linear order. Therefore, a category and list is more appropriate. --Jiang 10:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Kill it with a stick! - David Gerard 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - These Polish series/nav/whatever boxes keep getting bigger and bigger. – Netoholic @ 19:31, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Great information, but it doesn't belong in an infobox. Noel (talk) 14:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[too many and too large to subst, see User:Slartibartfast/Sandbox for all of them]

These five templates were being used to create "shared sections" on multiple articles with the same content. In the case of SevenLiberalArtsAndAstrology, I felt the contents were small enough and generic enough that I simply pasted it directly into the articles in question (liberal arts and astrology). AstrologyAndAlchemy, NumerologyAndAstrology and AstrologyAndClassicalElements I turned into articles in their own right (astrology and alchemy, Astrology and numerology and astrology and the classical elements), with stub sections and links to them in the articles that they formerly appeared in. And finally, I just moved the content of AstrologicalSignKeywords into astrological sign, since it seemed less appropriate in the other articles it was appearing in (zodiac and astrology). Now all of the content is held in article pages rather than templates, which IMO aren't appropriate for this sort of thing. Bryan 07:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - No indeed. Templates aren't supposed to be used to masquerade as article content in the main article space - David Gerard 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Ditto Fawcett5 23:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template talk:Coor dms family. – Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all (from WGS84, ending here). -Frazzydee|✍ 04:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not an infobox at all. This amounts to providing four links to definitions and classifies articles, only without the interlinking offered by a category system. The "infobox" just needlessly clutters the articles. Snowspinner 14:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

• This nomination is in bad faith. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, I really don't see that it is. What it is is nominating a blight of a template, one whose lone supporter has a habit of also reinserting it in articles as the HTML. Could you please explain why you think this nomination is disruption to make a point? - David Gerard 17:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether it's a template or written out by hand in HTML, it (1) fails the criteria for the reasons given (2) has precisely one fan on the entire wiki, who obsessively reinserts it and claims that removing it is a personal attack on him (despite the "no article ownership" policy). - David Gerard 17:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Provides useful information. Pwqn 19:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What information is provided that cannot be provided less intrusively by a category system? Snowspinner 19:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an infoboxnot an article series. Infoboxes are not redundant with categories. Pwqn 20:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • In general, yes. This is because infoboxes usually contain information such as the length of an album, or the genus of a species. This infobox, however, just contains category information. What aspect of this infobox, to your mind, would not be just as well served by a category? Snowspinner 00:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The information presented by the template can be better presented through categories and/or plain article text. -Sean Curtin 00:46, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't find this useful. -Frazzydee|✍ 06:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful. silsor 00:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Unused, replaced by Template:History of animation. grendel|khan 21:15, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Just listed as a candidate for speedy. Since a tfd tag was not put on it, it has no history. Who knows, it might just disappear. – Xiong (talk) 09:29, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

In the Stanford University article, I replaced the reference to this template with the general university template Template:Infobox University2. Seeing as how that article was the only one using this template (doesn't seem like a good idea to have a template for just one article), I propose the deletion of this template. MementoVivere 12:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not needed--Jiang 23:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what's wrong with the normal infobox? -Frazzydee|✍ 06:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 23:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wholly unneccesary. Fawcett5 23:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article would be more useful if it had an appropriate photograph. You can help Wikipedia by supplying one from a non-restricted source: consult the Wikipedia:Image use policy for more details.

Here is yet another template for Wikipedia articles missing pictures. BlankVerse ∅ 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Of course. BlankVerse ∅ 08:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We only need one such template. This one's a little better than some, but others already do the job this has been aimed at. It feeds into a stub category too (which it shouldn't - these articles aren't stubs). Grutness|^hello? 11:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – Xiong (talk) 15:18, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Redirect to ((reqimage)). – Netoholic @ 19:05, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. ((reqimage)) is doing a fine job of it. Mgm|^(talk) 15:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Preview or buy Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/March 2005 from
  • Amazon
  • iTunes
  • Napster
  • RealPlayer Music Store

Why should we be specifying a particular company? We don't with ISBNs or the like. This template is POV and nothing a user couldn't manage themselves. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 17:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Note. The template was created at 17:50, 18 Mar 2005 but as of 17:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC), it is not being used by any article. Zzyzx11 17:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an affiliate for the iTunes music store. TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Utterly useless. Alphax ^τεχ 08:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was created by an anon. I think it was mistakenly created as a template rather than a normal article. It serves no purpose, its only text is "Zofingen is a district & commune in Aargau." Should probably be speedy deleted, but nicely for the newcomer. --Dmcdevit 19:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone has no idea how to make articles... this template was used on one article: Zofingen (The article simply consisted of ((Zofingen)). I have moved the text from the template to that article, and the template can be expunged from the face of the planet. Grutness|^hello? 02:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is that a delete, then? Alphax ^τεχ 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Alphax ^τεχ 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion has been successful. This item should be logged and removed. – Xiong (talk) 09:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)