Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:TFD -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Closing instructions

Skip to table of contents  · Skip to current discussions  · Purge this page

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

How to use this page

What not to propose for deletion here

The majority of pages in the Template: namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

• Speedy deletion candidates

  If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.

• Stub templates

  Should be listed at Stub types for deletion.

• Policy or guideline templates

  Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, like the CSD templates cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.

• Userboxes

  Should be listed at MfD, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

• Template redirects

  Redirects for deletion.

• Renaming a template

  Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

• The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
• The template is redundant to a better-designed template
• The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
• The template violates some other key policy such as NPOV or CIVIL

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process (replace TemplateName, not including the namespace identifier "Template:", with the name of the template to be deleted unless otherwise noted):

{{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}

{{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}

{{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~~~~}}

{{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} ~~~~

It is generally considered civil to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to term a proposed action: "keep until orphaned" or anything similar as administrators will generally orphan any template before deletion. Please instead phrase it simply as "delete".

Current discussions

October 16

Template:Elections-small

Template:Elections-small (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

unnecessary spoiler template, standard portal template works fine, this is a bit much for an article template to tell people about a portal. MBisanz ^talk 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against the template deletion, but it should not be replaced with the standard portal template. --Electiontechnology (talk)

• Delete template is non-standard and serves absolutely no purpose. BJ^Talk 13:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

October 15

Template:Pokémon species

Template:Pokémon species (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Only used by one article, currently at AFD. Filled with in-universe information. Has been replaced by largely out-of-univese {{Infobox VG character}} in articles that would use it. See Pikachu and Jigglypuff for examples. Pagrashtak 20:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Useless template, redundant to other templates which are better suited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Tatarian (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Classic Albums

Template:Classic Albums (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

I'm having a hard time determining what constitutes a "classic album" or a "classic album series". The albums I checked did not self identify themselves as part of a classic album series or as a classic album. The list just appears to be one persons opinion of popular rock albums. Apteva (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I first saw it, but it turns out the albums listed are those featured on the TV series Classic Albums, which the template's title links to. Whether or not that warrants a navbox I don't know. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. I missed that. So should there be a navblock for all of the bands that appear on American Bandstand, or that were played on KSAN, or for sale at Tower Records? Putting the navblock at the bottom of each of the albums seems to give undue weight to them, and in my opinion serves no purpose. Apteva (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Very bad idea. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:LithuaniaAirplayChartNav

Template:LithuaniaAirplayChartNav (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Useless template, all three pages that are linked are up for deletion, as is the chart itself. Note that the chart is "hosted" on blogas.it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Redundant template. Tatarian (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Droid infobox

Template:Droid infobox (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused; redundant with another template: Template:SW Droid. --EEMIV (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification - CAF Second Group Round (Seeding)

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification - CAF Second Group Round (Seeding) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Not suitable. The seeding tables are not usually be put at a template. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Power Rangers monsters

Template:Power Rangers monsters (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Since I nominated the articles listed in this template for deletion, it is suitable that I nominate this template for deletion as well. If you would like to see the deletion nomination for the articles, click here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:External links cleaned

Template:External links cleaned (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Permanent cleanup template. Past consensus has been extremely clear that we do not want cleanup tags staying on articles forever. --- RockMFR 03:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Tags shouldn't stay on articles forever, I agree. Useless. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. What need is there for a template concerning past issues?. We only need issue templates concerning the articles current issues. Issue templates are for the current issues, not past issues. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This kind of notice should go in a comment. No need to alert the general audience. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Useless template. Tatarian (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Class II and III railroad templates

Template:US class II (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:US class III (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The reasons can be read at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 15#Class II and III railroad categories, where I am nominating related categories for deletion. NE2 03:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• delete - The nominator followed due process in implementing the change that rendered these templates obsolete. I would also suggest adding the templates (that I created just before the discussed changes) in Category:United States Class III railroads navbox templates for completeness. Slambo (Speak) 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Might it be preferable to repurpose those to include all railroads in the state (after a certain year?) and keep the redirects? --NE2 10:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

October 14

Template:Hockey linescore

Template:Hockey linescore (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template hasn't been edited in over a year and is used on no pages. Djsasso (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPDERM

Template:WPDERM (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Recently created template has been superseded by an expansion of {{WPMED}}. It is not used and has no likelihood of ever being used. The development and deletion of this template have been discussed on the task force's talk page at WT:DERM, with no objections to deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. As one of the authors, I have no issues with this template being deleted. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination Kilbad (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHL Schedule Start

Template:NHL Schedule Start (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template that was created a year ago which was never used as it was intended as WP:HOCKEY ended up going with another format. Djsasso (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Template can be modified to the format that WP:HOCKEY uses. Fbdave (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHL Schedule End

Template:NHL Schedule End (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template that was created a year ago which was never used as it was intended as WP:HOCKEY ended up going with another format. Djsasso (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Template can be modified to the format that WP:HOCKEY uses. Fbdave (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHL Schedule Entry

Template:NHL Schedule Entry (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template that was created a year ago which was never used as it was intended as WP:HOCKEY ended up going with another format. Djsasso (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Template can be modified to the format that WP:HOCKEY uses. Fbdave (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

October 13

Template:Abortion by country

Template:Abortion by country (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The only article which employs this template is the Abortion in the Netherlands article. All other "Abortion by country" articles employ continent-specific templates, such as Template:Abortion in Europe. The continent-specific templates are much more appropriate, as this template will be quite unwieldy when all countries of the world have "Abortion by country" articles. Neelix (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This template should be on all abortion by country pages, as it is allows for easy navigation between countries. CTJF83Talk 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Replace and delete. This template will, when finished, contain a link for every member state of the UN, all two hundred of them. That's not easy navigation at all. It would help if the continent-specific templates linked to each other, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing adding every country to the template, only ones with pages. CTJF83Talk 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • And by WP:DEADLINE, every country with an abortion law, past, present, or proposed, should have an article. Which countries don't satisfy that condition? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • We don't really have to rearrange things right now to accommodate hypothetical future events. If the list gets to be too long to be handy in the future, then it can be rearranged in the future. Also, it's not necessary to use separate templates; the countries could trivially be organized into separate rows by continent (see {{Abortion law}} for an example of a navigational template that is organized into rows). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Replace and delete per PMAnderson. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with continent specific templates, just as long as the articles are still in Category:Abortion by country. Maybe the continent specific templates should have a link to this category as well, say under "Abortion on other continents" or "Abortion in other regions"? — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 14:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Underconstruction

Template:Underconstruction (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:PageRefurb (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Revisions sandboxed (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Inuse-section (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Inuse/doc (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

When I first saw 'under construction' templates, I thought that I was not supposed to edit the page and it seems that discouraging editing is exactly the purpose. I think I may even have been told by another editor that I needed to wait until he/she had removed the template. However, people are abusing what should be a rare privilige. If the argument is that active editing is in process then they must be tapping away at their keyboards and that seems to be an argument for perhaps 15 minutes to an hour grace.

I have the following suggestions:

1. Ban 'under construction' templates. Wikipedia is always work in progress. I don't believe that the number of templates on articles matches a real requirement. However, I don't think many people will support this option.
2. Rationalise the many similar templates into one template.
3. Each 'under construction' template shall have a visible expiry time. This will make it much easier to see that the template is due for removal. Currently, you have to be determined to work out how long it has been there, who added it, and whether they are showing signs of activity.
4. The expiry time for 'under construction' templates shall not exceed one hour. The time of one hour is arbitarily chosen but is consistent with active editing of text by the editor that wants to use the template to discourage contributions by other editors. Nominated by Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

• Keep {{Underconstruction}}, no opinion as to the rest. We've been through this and this twice before as far as the {{Underconstruction}} template is concerned. It is necessary to avoid having articles speedy deleted for having lack of content or lack of assertion of notability. I do think that with the {{Underconstruction}} template the other templates are redundant, but I think at least one template is necessary. As currently worded, the {{Underconstruction}} template does not discourage other people from editing, and in fact encourages it. --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you support points 2, 3, and 4? Your second to last sentence appears to support point 2 at least. Lightmouse (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}}, per Lightmouse's point #2. I don't think it's necessary to delete them all (suggestion #1), but I do think more than one template for the same purpose ("go away while I WP:OWN this page") is a little overkill. I personally don't hold with Nlu's arguments regarding speedy deletion: it is quite simple to construct the article in userspace and then move it into mainspace when it's ready for inclusion. However, I have no objection to the underconstruction template being used when pages are being revamped (I've used it myself for this purpose). I also have no objection to Lightmouse's suggestions #3 and #4, although they seem a little WP:CREEPy to me. I agree with them, I just think they are quite unlikely to be followed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by 'unlikely to be followed'. There are already voluntary time options in the templates but they are not used. So I agree with you that a voluntary time option would not work. My suggestion was for the template to have a fixed time period that the user cannot change i.e.

• This page is undergoing active editing blah blah blah. This notice is valid until <timestamp>.

The editor could refresh it as many times as they like. I would not want to stop active editors seeking another period if they really are pounding the keyboard trying to get that updated text out. A visible-to-all fixed expiry time would end the problems caused by current fire-and-forget option. I am open to debate but I'm just trying to clarify things. Lightmouse (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't quite internalized that the timestamp would be mandatory (although it's going to be confusing for people who still aren't used to thinking in UTC). In that case I would support the time limits. However, I'd say you'd need to hardcode the time limit, something like {{prod}} does when subst:ed, or else it won't work. People will be putting in 6-month time limits or something like that. I agree with you that this shouldn't be used for more than an hour or so.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Your signature says '18:58, 13 October 2008'. If the expiry period is 1 hour, it would say something like 'this tag can be removed after 19:58, 13 October 2008'. As User:Greg implied, it is like a use-by date on food. The target for the design of the use-by timestamp is other people reading the page rather than the person that applied the tag. Page readers simply need to see when the tag is past its use-by date. Lightmouse (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And yes to hard-coding. No user configuration of the time. Lightmouse (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}} with an expiry of 1 hour (users permitted to refresh an unlimited number of times but always in blocks of 1 hour, no more), per point #2, #3, and #4. Voting for what I consider to be realistic options. Proposer. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note, this is the nominator. Woody (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Same same. I think the closing admin'll be smart enough to figure it out. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• These templates are not intended to discourage editors. Rather, they are a notice to readers: the article is in a mess, more than usually :)) don't count on it.. yet. keep at least {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse-section}}. NVO (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all but {{Revisions sandboxed}} and {{PageRefurb}} as they are superfluous. I thought this would happen when I mentioned these templates in the placeholder discussion. I have had occasion to use these templates numerous times. They are useful when overhauling an article for tedious issues like dates or reference formatting: things that cannot be easily resolved after edit conflicts. Some of these take longer than an hour, much longer, some larger text overhauls take days which necessitates the use of the Under construction template. Woody (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds to me like a vote for merge down from the current five. It also sounds like a recommendation to be able to mark either a 'whole article' or a 'section'. That sounds reasonable to me. What do you think of point #3 and point #4? Lightmouse (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would make it have a mandatory: "put on" date, so it is obvious when the template was put on the page. I think "In use" should have a time limit of three hours, which is usually when you lose the session data anyway. "Under construction" should have a time limit of two or three days; it is meant to be for longer periods, showing that an article is having a major overhaul. Woody (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose point #4. I would not use {{underconstruction}} (as opposed to {{inuse}}, which is "please don't edit-conflict with the current rush of edits") unless the page required real research; real research is unlikely to take less than a hour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How long do you think is reasonable for each tag that you want to retain? Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}}. Instructions should state that every effort should be made to remove the template as soon as possible, even if some additional updates are required. It should be available for sections or articles. The time frame should be input by the person placing the template since he/she knows the scope of effort required. It's an essential template especially for new articles. It lets everyone know that someone is in the process of doing major work on the article. All other very similar templates should be merged. — Wjwalrus (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We already allow users to enter a maximum time period. The problem is when they don't (look and see if you can spot *any* tag with a time period). What do we do then, leave it on the article for the life of Wikipedia? Lightmouse (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So make the time limit the default, instead of no time limit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge only {{PageRefurb}}; Keep the others. The distinction of {{Revisions sandboxed}}, which adds bells and whistles for those who want them, is probably worth the minor distinction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The reasonable course is not to remove these with a bot at all. The proper course is to ask the constructor what his plan is, and whether he is continuing with it, on his talk page. I would not remove the tag without consultation unless this note is not replied to, or the page has been static for an extremely long time (say six months). Don't worry, we'll still root them out before publication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the point is that the merged tag would have all the bells and whistles as options. If the {{revisions sandboxed}} optional params were included in the final merger, would you be ok with the a merger down to one?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • No. {{in use}} and {{underconstruction}} are radically different things; the former is "don't touch" for a short time, the latter invites collaboration and is long-term. There is also a place for simple templates without bells and whistles; ((tl|underconstruction}} and {{Revisions sandboxed}} should both exist, although the more complex one could use a more transparent name: {{Uc-options}}? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge. on particularly active pages, it is useful to let people know that there is a large-scale revision occurring, otherwise there's a lot of cross-editing that can significantly confuse the process. the visible expiry time is a good idea (though may be fruitless in the case of very large reconstructions). --Ludwigs2 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep {{Revisions sandboxed}}, I like it. I felt pressured to do something about Bethmann bank by an editor who "remove[d] hatnote redlink [from Bethmann family to Bethmann bank per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Non-existent articles)", so I rushed Bethmann bank into service before it was ready. {{Revisions sandboxed}} came in very handy for telling people not to jump on it just yet, and I like its flashy, noisy appearance. I cannot comment on the other templates. If you guys can agree on some kind of merger that preserves the purpose and effect of {{Revisions sandboxed}}, I would not oppose.--Goodmorningworld (talk)

• Keep and bot-expire faster. I agree with the nominator’s premiss that all of Wikipedia is under construction. I’ve never liked these “under construction” templates because they tend to be like that old 1987 calendar in your grandfather’s barn: why doesn’t someone just take it down? These templates serve a valuable purpose but they simply aren’t being pulled down soon enough. By exploiting bots, we can have a win-win here where these templates effectively have a “sell-by” expiration date.

  If I’m creating an article, I do it on my own user page or sub-page and post it only after it’s halfway presentable. Perhaps not all editors do that; not all editors are registered so they can’t avail themselves of such resources. I would propose that the template be kept and that a bot remove all these templates after 24 hours. If the user still feels the page needs a disclaimer that says, in effect, “this page isn’