Template:Prettytable

Delete: The template was nominated for deletion (at least) once before. The situation has changed since: The template can now be substituted by class="wikitable". This class has been added to common.css and generates (almost) the same look as [[Template:Prettytable|((prettytable))]] did before it was changed to merely include this very class. This also applies to several other templates that are based upon this one:

— Christoph Päper 11:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:LedZeppelin

Since I had two versions (the second of which should have been left alone under normal Wikipedia guidelines since it was smaller and nonredundant) of a Mike Watt template deleted, then let's see if there's any double standards in Wikipedia or not. With that in mind, I say... Keep It doesn't matter whether it looks ugly or distracting. A little more info on how the person looks can only be a helpful source. Not having the templates would be atrocious Delete. This template is certainly oversized and redundant, since the great majority of the links are in the article itself. Cjmarsicano 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Biography

  • Now that is really horrible. Who could possible think that improves an article? Perhaps (and just perhaps) on some scientific and mathematical pages these "facts thrust in your face" templates are useful, but on biographies and pages concerning literature and the arts, they are just a distraction that are of no use whatsoever. Giano | talk 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The point is: No template at all is required. Giano | talk 09:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If that was to be the case, why bother with an article at all - just have one big text box or table. Giano | talk 09:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So who decides? Or do we have an edit wars, as this thing causes at present? Giano | talk 21:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Editing wars are inevitable, the price that is paid for the free flow of ideas: editing freedom requires eternal vigilance. Editors are encouraged to consult and respond to discussion pages, which promote consensus and harmony: give a little, take a little. drboisclair 14:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, this is just irking me too much to avoid responding... you say that it abstracts information buried within the article - no, it does not, because dates and places of birth are noted at the top and at the end of biographies, and quotations are in the quotes subsection whose placement is obvious from the table of contents. This is not buried, unless someone actually can't read. WordNet defines an abstract as a "sketchy summary of of the main points of an argument or theory". Surely someone's date and place of birth and death are not their main points?! You also said that it's the presentation of FAQ about that person - how are the dates and places of birth and death, let alone quotations, so frequently asked questions about people? Do semi-random places and dates really matter that much to a lot of people that they just absolutely need to have it all in one place and avoid reading the actual article? "I've no idea who John Doe is, but I must know where and when he was born in a gray box next to that silly biography of his!!" --Joy [shallot] 19:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Biographical infoboxes that contain images of paintings and photographs contain helpful information on the paintings and photographs themselves. Infoboxes make use of the diversity of web format as opposed to text only. There is a need for more diversity in presenting information not less. drboisclair 14:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, cool, I get to copy&paste a sentence I already used here. One does not need a separate template in order to include a right-aligned picture of a person in a biography. Read Wikipedia:Images for help on doing that. --Joy [shallot] 17:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just out of interest, is it possible to calculate how many of the "keep" voters here, have actually written at least one biography which is a featured article? Giano | talk 12:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha, so in other words anyone who hasn't started something that has become a featured article doesn't know what the heck it is they're talking about? :P. FranksValli 15:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your words, not mine. I was just thinking that sometimes it pays to keep the labourers happy. Giano | talk 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'd be at least one keep voter who has written a biography that has become a featured article (Franklin B. Gowen). slambo 15:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it should be clearly pointed out, one of the reasons this template finds itself here, is because at least two users were trying to force it indiscriminately on all pages. Regardless of comments and consensus on talk pages. These same users if reverted then created edit wars. Resulting in one FA biography being protected twice. There is undeniably a large percentage of editors who detest this template, what can be done to prevent this being forced on all pages, and a recurrence of edit wars Giano | talk 11:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Giano is obliquely referring to me. He was also issed off because I added his article to FARC, and is one of the main reasons I've gone off the air due to his constant assertions that I tried to "force" the template on the pages (I reverted the article several times, but then again I also added a note to the talk page and I never saw him respond on that talk page). - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is not the place for off subject disputes. I have answered this editors allegations on his talk page here [2] Giano | talk 13:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is not the place for off subject disputes. I have answered this editors allegations on his talk page here [3] Giano | talk 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the places where we currently have info boxes are on subjects where we consistently have more than two fields of useful information available. For biographys there simply isn't enough short facts that are both interesting and common to most people we write about. --Gmaxwell 01:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two things: first, the infobox helps to maintain visual congruence in Wikipedia. I actually expect to see infoboxes in most articles nowadays. Second, I insist, ((sofixit)). There's several things you can write in an infobox, for example, why they're notable (in one sentence... taking Albert Einstein as an example: Famous for creating theory of relativity), the name of their spouses (if known), and others... there's others with more imagination than I do. Titoxd 02:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An infobox isn't a place to put large amounts of text, and for many people it is not possible to say why they are famous in a single phrase. Even in your example, it would be a huge disservice to the Albert Einstein article to claim that that alone is the most important reason that he is famous. Although, you're right there are more stats, but I didn't think people thought they were useful for biographies. I'll add them. --Gmaxwell 03:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I've merged in a number of other stats from another biographical infobox. This is more in line with the intention of infoboxes. ... now it'll just be work to fill in the missing data. --Gmaxwell 04:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changes shouldn't be made while this template is the subject of a Tfd, especially when the additions alter nearly 400 articles; is penis/breast size really pertinent to a bio?--Lordkinbote 04:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess not, I was just reverted. So now it appears that the fact that it's been inserted on 400ish articles is not only an excuse to keep it, but one to prevent it from being improved as well. --Gmaxwell 04:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess my other objection (besides the penis/breast thing) concerns all of the other data that is likely not available for folks who passed on long ago; the few bios I've done have been for individuals who died a century or more ago, where it's nearly impossible to fill in those blanks properly. I am a "Keep" vote but will change to "Delete" or remove the template from my articles with these changes. Maybe we should have a "contemporary" template that incorporates your additional data.--Lordkinbote 04:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope that at least, though, this does put to rest the idea that its use should be mandatory, and stops the practice of people simply parachuting in, imposing the infobox, and then being belligerent about keeping it there. PRiis 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Notable Wikipedian

Violates avoid self-reference both by creating an internal link and in mentioning they're wikipedians at all. There are a few wikipedians that should have a link to their user page in their article's external links section (Jimbo springs to mind), but for most people who've edited wikipedia it just isn't that notable a thing about them and shouldn't be in the article at all (like User:Eric S. Raymond). --fvw* 06:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NB
This template has now been moved to the appropriate talk pages and converted to standard format. Further voting should therefore take this into account. —Phil | Talk 09:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Template:Public universities in Ohio

September 27 [edit]

Template: Public universities in Ohio

Delete: Redundant; a similar category already exists. Additionally, there aren't enough schools to justify the use of a somewhat large, somewhat unattractive template. Soltak | Talk 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 

   * Keep. Harmless template. --tomf688{talk} 02:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
   * Delete. Very similar to Template: Virginia Higher Education, which has a pretty strong delete consensus in the Sep 24 TFD. The idea is that templates like this take up a lot of space for very little benefit. This kind of thing is much better accomplished with categories. -- Tyler 05:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep. State of Michigan has the same template... Template:Public universities in Michigan would be a double standard not to put it for Ohio as well. --jason.isaacs 13:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

   I would say delete that one too, and any others like it. What function do they serve that caetgories don't? -- Tyler 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
   I'd have to agree with Tyler that the Michigan template should also be deleted, not used to defend the presence of a needless template. Your argument seems to be that because we already have one unnecessary thing, we might as well have several. Soltak | Talk 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

       One can navigate intuitively with the much smaller ((otherarticles)). Delete. Septentrionalis 04:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   * Delete and use the category. --Andy Janata 19:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep Rkevins82 - TALK 22:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep. Navigational templates, lists, and categories serve similar but distinct purposes. -- SwissCelt 04:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

   Templates that duplicate a category are only useful if they provide some form of organization that the category doesn't, such as chronological order or showing relationships between entries. This template does neither. It's an alphabetical listing just like a category, so what is its distinct purpose? -- Tyler 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

   * Delete template inappropriate for universities not unfied under a single institution. the category will suffice --Jiang 06:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
   * Delete, for the reasons given by Jiang. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
   * The unifying item is that they are all funded and supported by the State of Ohio as universities working for the common good. The template makes things more AESTHETIC! --jason.isaacs 14:148, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep, seems harmless to me as well.Hektor 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep. Useful and harmless. We can have templates and categories and lists. Unfocused 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
   * keep please templates like these can be helpful Yuckfoo 21:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep, if editors feel this is better opened out on the page than tucked away in a category they should be able to use it. Kappa 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Oldvfdfull

Delete: Obsolete template, not even needed for historical reasons due to the fact that all uses of this havee been using substitution so keeping this template leaves no purpose. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I only realized that after I put this nom up and after Zscout370 had already voted thus making it so I couldn't remove the nomination. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Db-spam

It is a {[tl|db)) type template - but the reason given is: "''It is [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|patent advertisement]]'''''". This is not a WP:CSD and so there cannot be any legitimate use for this template. It should be deleted. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pop song 1 and Template:Pop song 2

These are very similar to the recently deleted Template:Stillman-Allen-Four Lads, like it this template autogenerates unexpandable song substubs. If all the information that it is possible to add is song name, group name, and year released, simply creating a list would be far more useful. - SimonP 02:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Citation style

Delete: There doesn't need to be a template for every incremental improvement an editor could make to the article. There are plenty of well researched, carefully written articles with references not in the Wikipedia style. Why should good articles start with an unsightly template? (I wasn't even aware there was a Wikipedia style, and I've been editing and carefully referencing articles for many months!) Joke137 15:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template: Public universities in Ohio

Delete: Redundant; a similar category already exists. Additionally, there aren't enough schools to justify the use of a somewhat large, somewhat unattractive template. Soltak | Talk 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say delete that one too, and any others like it. What function do they serve that caetgories don't? -- Tyler 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have to agree with Tyler that the Michigan template should also be deleted, not used to defend the presence of a needless template. Your argument seems to be that because we already have one unnecessary thing, we might as well have several. Soltak | Talk 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One can navigate intuitively with the much smaller ((otherarticles)). Delete. Septentrionalis 04:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templates that duplicate a category are only useful if they provide some form of organization that the category doesn't, such as chronological order or showing relationships between entries. This template does neither. It's an alphabetical listing just like a category, so what is its distinct purpose? -- Tyler 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template: Fair use music

Delete: Fair use should not be file-format dependent. Furthermore, fair use does not depend on exact length or codec quality. This template will convince people all music fitting the template's criteria is fair use, which is certainly not true. Much music that does not fit the criteria is fair use, and vice-versa. We also ought not provide free advertising to Ogg Vorbis. Superm401 | Talk 00:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Aircraft-jet-mil

Proposed as a templatised system for aircraft specs a few months ago, but a different template system is being developed. It's no longer necessary, and orphaned as well. Ingoolemo talk 04:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WV Highways

Listify/categorify then delete: Identical to former TFD candidate Template:VA Highways, which is still sitting in the To convert to category section now. Howcheng 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KEEP - This is a simple, logical way of navigating. Almost sounds (from the comments made above) that someone doesn't want it just because it was someone else's idea. I, personaly think that every state should have templates like this. --Drunski 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KEEP - I am surprised that in my absence, a few zealots have taken it upon themselves to undo the work done by the West Virginia contributors. As a contributor, I do see Rschen7754's point that there should be increased consistency among all articles of a similar nature, but at what cost and how much work will be at stake when people take it upon themselves to decide what is "consistent." As a West Virginian and fellow contributor on West Virginian topics, I feel that these contributors who created the WV State Route pages have used these template boxes because of the easiness at which it allows people to view all the state routes. Drunski and MountaineerFan66 reiterate this obvious fact. I also believe there is a lack of active social and sex lifes on Wikipedia, maybe some of these nay-sayers need to address other aspects of their lives, instead of taking their own personal frustrations out on the work of dedicated contributors. --Jhohenzollern 23:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ad hominem attacks are truly uncalled for. I brought this template to TFD because I felt, like Rschen7754, that consistency between how state highways are categorized in the different states is a good thing. After all, the VA Highways template was pretty much identical and was deleted almost unanimously (see discussion). If the consensus is that it's acceptable for WV highways to be listed in a navigation template, then so be it. Disparaging the intentions or motivations of other Wikipedians does not help your case in any way. --Howcheng 15:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The VA Template Deletion is not a valid argument. Serveral of us that worked on it, where trying to finish the WV Template them move on to the VA plate. To our dismay, when I voted to Keep my vote was deleted off the page, all be it I found out it late in the process. The WV Template is very consistant with the Highways, US, Interstate, and ADHS Highways all have similar templates which make for easy navigation. --141.157.157.105 22:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* 'KEEP easy to use box, very useful  --Munchman7 16:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Talkheader

delete. A newbie must be welcomed anyway, a troll will ignore it anyway. So this template is an unnecessary burden for traffic. mikka (t) 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template: Album infobox 2

Delete: It makes unnecessary use of "fair use" images (album covers) when we're trying to cut down on this. It also increases the size of (already rather large) infoboxes, and slows down page loading ,especially for dialup users. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks BGC 20:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are still entitled to an opinion. BGC 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But their inexperience should be noted. They are also more likely sock puppets than users with more edits. So why did you remove Mel Etitis' comment about such user? Such is suspicious. [7] -Hapsiainen 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because some people's remarks are ridiculous and petty, and therefore, not constructive. Direct your self-righteousness at yourself. BGC 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sock puppetry is so serious problem that they have an official policy about it. Searching for sock puppets isn't ridiculous or petty. -Hapsiainen 09:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Different size copies are different images in the Wikipedia server, so they don't get loaded as you wish. Gallery is markup, not a template. The images in the galleries should be useful for the article. I believe that small images in this template are not such. -Hapsiainen 09:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hapsiainen already voted on this issue just above. This vote should not be counted as an extra one. BGC 00:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I understand and see how it works now, thanks. So am i correct in saying the issue is not only increased traffic, but requires the server to actually create the thumbnail? Are these thumbnails generated everytime someone loads the page, or are they retained after the first creation? or do expire after a certain amount of time/uses? (to me, the only issue was server load; fair use, clutter & aesthetics were fine) —deanos {ptaaglek} 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thumbnails are entirely discrete image files, which have to be loaded separately. Each image file requires a separate call to its host, increasing the load on the Wikipedia servers. In addition, whenever the uploaded image dimensions do not exactly match the dimensions called for in the template, user load time is increased -- and most of the thumbnail images uploaded for this template that I've checked out don't match up -- often significantly, as the user's browser must regenerate the image in corrected dimensions. Monicasdude 01:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering the point on phasing out, it should be noted that this is a new template (that was made independent of the albums project. I tried to get a discussion going on the project site, and the little feedback I got was positive.) and that it is not being used extensively (as far as I know Bob Dylan, The Beatles and Nirvana are the only chronologies it has been used on), so phasing it out should not be a problem. Tokle 16:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list has now grown to between 250 and 500 albums.here —deanos {ptaaglek} 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've noticed that User:BGC has been adding this controversial template to articles during the deletion vote. -Hapsiainen 10:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also noticed that a decision has not been reached yet and therefore users are free to implement the template as they wish. It's too bad a couple of users persist in acting in bad faith rollback editing. BGC 20:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The album cover is not meant to be a link to the article, that's why the title is below it.BGC 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That still doesn' help from a usability point of view. You and I know that images never work as article links. Newbies don't. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But when you added an album cover to a review (which is fair use), you added that album's cover, not another album's, correct? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I did just realise that made it a bad point, sorry. I also realised that deleting the template wouldn't have much effect as hopefully things wouldn't have to be re-written (only two lines taken out). I do like the look of the album art progression but if it's not fair use then it's ok to take it out. Jellypuzzle 09:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doe that mean that you're changing your vote? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We want to get rid of the extra images in the albumbox template because they are not fair use. -Hapsiainen 19:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Country flagISO

This is an unused duplicate of Template:Country flag. The creator's idea was to allow ISO abbreviations, for example via ((country|flagISO|RUS)), which expands to ((country flagISO|RUS)). But that isn't necessary, since one can simply use ((country|flag|RUS)). dbenbenn | talk 17:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisting this since disagreement between the nominator and the author isn't really enough discussion to decide on. -Splashtalk 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:npa4

This template is intended to be used by an administrator to inform an editor that he has been blocked for making personal attacks. There is only one problem: administrators do not block editors for making personal attacks. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template: Barugo

Delete: A navigational footer template consisting completely of red links. These are links to barangays of a certain municipality. Barangays in the Philippines are small communities of about 1000 people, and typically they are not notable enough to be article-worthy. Coffee 07:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Template: delete

Delete: After several days of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deleteing ((tl|d))|discussion between several users on the Administrators' Noticeboard]], I've decided to nominate this template for deletion. There are several reasons why ((d)) should be removed and ((deletebecause)) should be moved to its place:

Titoxd(?!?) 01:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But, if the nominator had to think 'on what grounds' he'd probably realise that it wasn't one. --Doc (?) 17:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Various "Vandal Warning" templates

Delete': Explained below -- (drini's page|☎) 08:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect per discussion below. -- (drini's page|☎) 14:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above templates are just copies of the standard Test templates: ((Test)), ((Test2)), ((Test4-n)), etc... with the sole addition of 4 tildes (~~~~) (please see the templates history for the nominated version) obtained through an ugly hack. Besides, such templates are not editable without long pain, as the 4 tildes turn into signature as soon as you edit the templates which explains why on the templates my signature shows up (it was converted when I added the TfD tag). Since this is merely a duplication of standard templates, I nominate them for deletion under criteria T2 (redundant) -- (drini's page|☎) 08:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name of article extensions already exist in the Testx-n series of templates, it's not something new. --pgk(talk) 12:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--☺Adam1213☺|talk 13:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC) - Thanks for the suggestion...Reply[reply]

How about this idea I make the v series with autosign and the vw series becomes redirects or the opposite. better if v series is redirects and these are kept.... --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 13:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you recreate these tempaltes under the "v" name, they will just be redirecte too, because the same arguments on this page will apply too. -- (drini's page|☎) 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Not "translucent". Not "the same as test." No auto-signatures. Redirect. FreplySpang (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not make a v series instead of taking my vw warnings??? or this could become the v series... --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 22:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you recreate these tempaltes under the "v" name, they will just be redirecte too, because the same arguments on this page will apply too. -- (drini's page|☎) 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template: Cuba infobox

Country Specific Infoxboxes that only redirect to Template:Infobox Country

((Argentina infobox)), ((Angola infobox)), ((Austria infobox)), ((United Kingdom infobox)), ((India infobox)), ((Canada infobox)), ((Spain infobox)), ((France infobox)), ((Singapore infobox)), ((Mexico infobox)), ((Bolivia infobox)), ((Suriname infobox)), ((Infobox Philippines)), ((Infobox Australia)), ((Chile infobox)), ((Mozambique infobox)), ((New Zealand infobox)), ((Infobox Bosnia and Herzegovina))

I think that's all of them in addition to ((Cuba infobox)) below. Each of these serves the "purpose" of segregating off the infobox from a single article into a separate template used only by that article and does so by then invoking ((Infobox Country)), it would be simpler and help avoid the prospect of these infoboxes becoming nonstandardized again if Infobox Country were invoked directly the appropriate article. The consenus reached by WikiProject Countries was against having Infobox templates for each country. Caerwine 21:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is the template "policy" you refer to?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) No metatemplates [Templates calling other templates]; 2) No single-use templates, except where used on policy/procedural Wikipedia-related pages. If this isn't recorded somewhere, it should be, the metatemplate issue has been brought up often on the Pump. No one's forcing use of Infobox Country on your pet nation's article - but we're saying, don't make a metatemplate/single use template. Keep the code in the article, that's all we ask. --Golbez 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep in mind that I only nominated those single article templates that did nothing except use the ((Infobox Country)) template. If the template doesn't fit the needs of a particular country then it shouldn't use it, except as a atarting for creating its own infobox. Caerwine 05:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Arab subdivision

Delete: This template contains only four links and it is unlikely that there will ever be significantly more. Furthermore:

Keep:

Instead of deleting the template it and the articles should be extended. A similiar template could be created for russian subdivision terms. These templates easily bind together related articles. It does not harm anybody. But helps the editors. User:Timwi already deleted this template by abusing his admin rights. He did not ask any involved person before nor did he put up "see also" references, linking the terms together. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC) AND Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Imarah was a red link when Timwi submitted this template for comment. Now it's just a redirect to Emirate, itself just a paragraph of text with a couple of links.
  • Mintaqah has more than two links, but that doesn't mean it's not a candidate for being a disambiguation page. See Lincoln, for example. Don't assume that "disambiguation" is somehow a denigration of your work or a demotion of your page.
  • Muhafazah clearly duplicates the information in Governorate. The extra information could easily be merged into Governorate, if it is deemed appropriate to do.
Let's keep the discussion civil and factually accurate. I have no opinion (yet) on the deletion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • it seems you speak with me - Tobias. I never thought the number of links is any relevant to decide whether the page is dab-tagable. Anyway, is the dab-tag relevant to template deletion as implied by User:Timwi? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • when I visit governorate I see content that is not on muhafazah. When I visit muhafazah I see content that is not on governorate. The statement that one is a duplicate of the other is therefore wrong for my computer.
  • is it any relevant that imarah was a redlink when User:Timwi posted his claimes? I think the template-deletion decision should take into account the most recent status. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. By "duplicates", I did not mean "completely duplicates everything and contains no other information than what is duplicated". I just meant that it is largely redundant. I thought this was fairly clear from my acknowledgement that if necessary, some information would need to be merged into Governorate. It is relevant to point out the timing of the red link because you seem to be using it to discredit Timwi's motivations instead of just pointing out the obvious fact that you have (rightly!) fixed it. Side note: please try not to interleave your comments with mine; it makes things harder to follow in the long run. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
for interleaving: thanks for pointing this out. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
??????? do you vote for delete muhafazah? I think this is the wrong place. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm referring to the template. If the terms represent unique types of subdivisions, they should be added to ((Subnational entity)) directly; if they are merely Arabic terms for subdivisions already present in that template, then they do not require a separate template. Kirill Lokshin 10:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
of course they are unique types. But there are maybe 500 unique types around the world (and more). They cannot all go into ((Subnational entity)). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:User du-0

See: m:Incivility; Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and m:Don't be a dick.
Comment: This TFD listing is arguably a violation of an ArbCom ruling against Davenbelle stalking Cool Cat - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. As such, I've removed the TFD notice from the template itself - David Gerard 18:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Was that appropriate? Having the notice on there alerted users of this template that it is up for deletion. Without that alert, users may log on one day to find that it has been deleted, without ever having the chance to take part in the discussion.—Gaff ταλκ 02:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Possibly. I was tempted to speedy-keep it as a blatant bad faith nomination in the face of an AC warning not to pull this sort of stunt, but thought that'd be a bit much - David Gerard 13:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further comment: I've created and am using Template:User du-1. Which I think gives a better and important message, and doesn't contain a category - David Gerard 16:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When will we be voting on that one?—Gaff ταλκ 02:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An A for effort, but it's still inherently uncivil. To me, this is no better than starting every conversation with every new person I run into with "Are you a dumbass?". Don't get me wrong, I get the joke; I just don't see any need for this whole attitude to be condoned by having it in the Template namespace. It seems pretty clear to me that this is the kind of thing people will eventually start to take seriously. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. It's a reminder that working on Wikipedia means you will have to deal with people you consider destructive idiots just as if they weren't. This is difficult, but it's also obligatory. I suggest that what you perceive as "uncivil" in stating this is that the eternal nature of human stupidity is not pleasant - David Gerard 13:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should add: alternate wordings (that don't make it even longer) are most welcome. Edit this template - David Gerard 15:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re joke comments: "jokes" such as this serve the project how? — Davenbelle 08:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lets see. It points out commets from dumbasses are not welcome. While it is a "joke" it goes along with m:Don't be a dick and m:Bash. It is a joke template given "dumbass" is not a real language. It benefits the project by discourageing dumbass comments which are by nature dumb. --Cool Cat Talk 23:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My experience with Internet dumbasses is that warnings like this do more to goad them into action than to discourage them. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You going to nominate Wikipedia:Department of Fun next? ~~ N (t/c) 23:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It does not say that comments from dumbasses are not welcome. It says, "This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass)". This would imply that dumbass comments be directed elsewhere. This is an important distinction.—Gaff ταλκ 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Assume good faith. — Davenbelle 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to arbcom you have been hounding me. The case closed and that was one of the results and now you are trying to get a template on my userpage deleted and you come and post random policies. Tell, me how is your continuing hounding benefiting the project? Leave me alone damn it. --Cool Cat Talk 02:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be on the pages of at least 9 different users. It is not unique to Cool Cat's user page. DES (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would be much less likely to ask a question of a user with this template - if they don't understand 'dumbass', then they are implying that they won't really understand any question asked by someone with less knowledge, and at the very least are indicating a willingness to attack question(ers) as stupid. I think it's counterproductive. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template: History of literature

Delete: This template is large and intrusive. It takes up half the screen and is very long and has a giant out-of-focus picture of unrelated books. Examples at Matter of Britain and Latin literature among others. Stbalbach 18:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template: welcome5

Delete: We already have more than enough welcoming templates, we don't need every single user to make a seperated welcome-template..it'd be flooding Wikipedia with superfluousness -- SoothingR 07:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More