Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005 is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Contents

Template:Football in Portugal

Overkill template, with two other templates included (which are of value individually) and a list of seasons, with only one article done. Large, bulky and next to useless, as if needed, the two templates can be placed seperately and the list of seasons converted into a wikilink of template:Football in Portugal table cells, which I've struggled earlier to make barely usable. After FiP is deleted, the "table cells" template could have that part of the name removed, and used for division and federation articles wS;✉ 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, too heavy handed for its purpose. With that purpose only really being one article, it could just be subst:ed. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep --MarSch 16:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

two persons questioned the original decision to delete, which led to reassignment here

Period of comment 9 August AM to 14 August PM — 6 days
Removed from TFD 25 August AM (originally to the deleted log) — 16 days

Template:Preview

Delete: It is listed as a template message for the user talk namespace, but it is too large to put on a user's talk page. It is also just a redirect to Wikipedia:Show preview, which makes it somewhat redundant. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per Alphax. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless. ∞Who?¿? 11:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I've never seen this before, any template that is a redirect outside of the Template namespace should be a Speedy delete candidate. BlankVerse ∅ 12:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted. nonsense. ed g2s • talk 01:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was created as a bit of a joke - the idea being to substitute it into a user's talk page. I've recreated a shorter, more useful version. Edit it mecilessly, but please don't delete it on sight. Alphax τεχ 10:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now a valid, useful template. Sigh... Alphax τεχ 01:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 1 August AM to 10 August AM — 9 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 9 days

Template:Sharks

This template have not been deleted but removed from all articles by Gdr. The template is a navigational template, it have been discussed before and now GDR thinks there is a consensus since one user was agains and one for removal adding his agains that was a consensus, so he used his bot to remove (not delete) it. See discussion at Template talk:Sharks. I have stated my point there as has he, or stan opinion that GDR agrees with. I can not start a edit war with a admin with a bot so I found this place and though this was a good place to discuss. Also see my suggestion to add nav links under language links? not sure if possible, probably better than this template but that is not the vote. This vote is either for deletion and not usage of the template or for keeping and adding the template back to the articles where it was removed from. Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Is good for navigational purposes, much easier to use than category and tax boxes, especially for new users. Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is currently a very, very partial list of the 350+ total possible sharks. Either it will always be rather incomplete, or it will be H--U--G--E--! Either way, it shouldn't be a navigation template. The template should be converted to a list, which can be grouped, annotated, illustrated, etc., and then a link to the new List of sharks can be added to the "See also" section of each shark article. BlankVerse ∅ 15:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Originally going to say keep, but after reading [User:BlankVerse|BlankVerse] ∅ argument, i'm agreeing with him instead.--ZeWrestler Talk 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with above. - SimonP 00:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Listify and delete, as above. --Carnildo 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and listify if felt necessary. -Splash 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aesthetically pleasing and extremely useful. This anti-template crusade is a pity. --goethean ॐ 15:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with BlankVerse. The template can only contain small percentage of sharks, so a list is more appropriate in this case. The JPS 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Goethean. --WikiFan04Talk 20:14, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)
  • Delete as per BlankVerse. It may be "Aesthetically pleasing" now but not when there are hundreds of links on it in the future if kept. RedWolf 22:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be to listify: therefore I have moved the template to "list of sharks" and editors can do what they want with it. Dan100 (Talk) 11:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 1 August PM to 10 August PM — 9 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 9 days

Template:Chicagoland

Delete: This template is unnecessary. We already have one for the City of Chicago and one for the state of Illinois which lists both the Chicagoland region and most of the cities in the regions. Having potentially three regional templates on a page ({{Chicago}} {{Illinois}} and {{Chicagoland}}) just seems excessive. Plus, the template isnt even fell formatted. --Gpyoung talk 03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Parts of Chicagoland lie within Indiana and Wisconsin. — Instantnood 14:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The template is informative. The easy solution is for {{Chicago}}to replace {{Chicagoland}} in articles about Chicago. --goethean ॐ 15:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the base problem here needs a better solution. Very often you have a city and other governments that frequently go by the name of the city or other names. There is a lot of overlap. I hope this discussion becomes a step on the road to fixing the overall problem. In looking at the template in question, I don't see it as a big issue so I'd vote Keep but maybe someone needs to make sure that only one of the two local ones listed above is used in an article. Vegaswikian 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep. As Instantnood mentioned, this template is helpful for those regions of Chicagoland stretching into other states. --BaronLarf 18:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep. Chicagoland comprises a significant proportion of the Illinois population as well as serves a navigational purpose for many chicagoland related pages. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 18:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could people please use Keep or Delete, rather than Oppose? It makes it harder to know if you are opposing the templates nomination (i.e. want to Keep it) or opposing it's existence (i.e. want to Delete it). I think it is usually the former, but I would rather not have to interpret every comment just to be sure. Thanks. Dragons flight 21:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and categorize. An uncertainly defined list, as the discussion of Rockford, Illinois on its talkpage shows; without the advantage of a list article in discussing doubtlful cases. Septentrionalis 21:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • But Chicagoland is defined; see the Chicagoland article for the counties of which it is comprised. If someone added Rockford thinking it was in Chicagoland, they were simply mistaken. HollyAm 22:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Chicagoland has over 8 million residents. I think that it would deserve a template. --67.173.128.161 03:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, which I've already taken the liberty of doing, into Template:Chicago. I think it looks much better and is more compact this way.--Pharos 04:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful template. If too many templates is the concern, there is already a link to Chicagoland in Template:Chicago, so eliminate Template:Chicagoland from City of Chicago articles. Suburb articles would not have Template:Chicago, so again, only two templates. If formatting or content is the concern, these could have been discussed on talk or changed (compliments to User:Pharos on the latter). HollyAm 22:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 5 August AM to 6 August PM — 1 day Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 7 days

Template:Scientific classification

Delete, well-meaning, but inappropriate way to generate taxoboxes. Currently linked by two articles that I will soon have converted. Circeus 16:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional Keep-It seems like a good idea and a good thing to have. If it isnt quite up to speed, I think it can definatly be fixed and brought up to standard. I dont quite understand your link about the Taxoboxes, so that is why I voted conditional keep. If you can show that there is a better way to do it, I will change my vote. --Gpyoung talk 17:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Assembling a taxobox can be tricky. A template that handled the more common cases would be helpful. But this tempalte is rather more limited than its name implies. This templace creates a taxobox for a single animal species. It does not handle plants or fungi or other non-animal species. It does not handle taxoboxes for a group larger than a singel species (a family or order, say). It does not handle taxoboxes when any of the less common levels of classification should be used (sub-class or super-class, sub-phylem, etc). If this is to be retained, than the usage of its parameters, and these limitatiosn should be throughly documented, with a link to the page where general taxobox format is described, and its name should be changed to something less general sounding than Scientific classification. Perhaps Template:Animal species taxobox. Conditional keep if these changes are made. By the way, I don't think tempalte syntax is up to a single tempalte that can handle a fully general taxobox, unless there are tricks to template syntax i don't know yet. DES (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 5 August PM to 11 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 7 days

Template:Alsace infobox

Redundant with Template:Infobox French Région that could be used on Alsace instead. For a discussion see also WikiProject French régions. -- User:Docu

  • The template Template:Infobox French Région was used for only 3 of the 26 régions of France, whereas the other 23 régions have each a specific infobox which is more detailed and better laid out than the generic Template:Infobox French Région, so I am puting specific infoboxes for the three remaining régions. It's better to have specific infoboxes for each région rather than a generic infobox for all the régions because each région has its own peculiarities, and one generic infobox cannot do the job (some régions need footnotes, some don't, some régions are made up of several départements, while some régions are monodepartmental, etc.). Hardouin 15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep-This infobox is much better laid out then Template:Infobox French Région and it is also much more detailed. If Template:Infobox French Région really is only used on three articles, I think IT should be up for deletion. Sometimes, people here try too hard to standardize things and over-standardization (is that a word?) can sometimes lead to decreased quality, as is shown with Template:Infobox French Région IMO. --Gpyoung talk 16:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Didn't all Regions used to use Template:Infobox French Région? It is fairly easy to add additional fields to the infobox. If an infobox can be made for all countries it should be easy for French regions.-- User:Docu
  • Like Gpyoung rightly said, sometimes people try too hard to standardize things, for no real reason. Individual infoboxes take more time to design in the first place, but then they are much more flexible in use than a generic infobox. Besides, I would like to point out that the infoboxes for French régions were all designed with the same format, so if you check several French régions, you'll have the impression the infobox is a unique standardized infobox, whereas in fact it is specific to each région. So we get both the benefit of standardization (uniform format) and the benefit of specific infoboxes (flexibility). Hardouin 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I prepared the replacement for Template:Alsace infobox at Template talk:Alsace infobox. Is there anything missing? (I agree, I could have prepared that before, please excuse) -- User:Docu
  • Delete, as they stand right now Alsace infobox is unneeded specialization. All you have to do is add the links to the files into the french region template and it will give you the present Alsace box. gren グレン 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --WikiFan04Talk 20:16, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)
  • Comment on the surface this would look like a single use template. Is it likely to be included in more then one article? Vegaswikian 01:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del, single use template. Also I agree with Grenavitar.--MarSch 16:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe a subst first. Vegaswikian 07:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 6 August to 17 August AM — 11 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 19 days

Template:Otherusesabout

Worrying new template that ecourages repetition of opening paragraph above it for disambiguation. Template:Otheruses is already the standard way to provide a disambiguation link. ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. (By which I mean bot all uses to Template:Otheruses, then delete.) ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • comment I wouldn't suggest botting this as suggested ... there are less than 250 uses and the likelihood is that more than one of the bot replacements would result in some manner of nonsense being writ. Would it be possible to subst: the existing uses if the template gets deleted, which would maintain the status quo on the articles that currently use it while removing it from circulation for new uses? Courtland 01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That being voted, I'll say that "worrying" is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air. Courtland 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note the (nearly) identical template, {{otheruses1}}. Coincidentally, a template named {{otheruses1}} was deleted per TFD consensus in December 2004 --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    3 to 1 is not exactly "consensus", or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. —Lowellian (talk) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Let's reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the "old" template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn't make any difference. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundancy stinks. -- jiyTalk 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redundancy is sometimes necessary. --DuKot 01:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant with {{otheruses1}}. CG 09:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu

Template:Otheruses1 is now orphaned. I propose we delete this too as it is pretty much identical (unless anyone thinks we need to vote separately?). ed g2s • talk 14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they're practically identical. Anyone who's voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don't need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up.
  • comment considering the identity of the two templates, could the second be speedied if the first is deleted? Courtland 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand why people want to delete this. It's not identical to Template:Otheruses, so it's not redundant, right? —Lowellian (talk) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep overdeletionism is a pain in the arse, redirectionism is better. Dunc|☺ 13:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, provides context not given by Template:Otheruses. -Sean Curtin 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    It's the wrong way to do disambiguation. Context is given by the first line/paragraph of the article. ed g2s • talk 08:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • comment No, it's an OK way to do disambiguation; it's just an inelegant way of doing it. There are few cases where application of the concept the template targets is needed (as noted below) and those few cases can be handled without the use of a template. Courtland 01:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu
  • Delete redundant with introductory paragraph. JesseW 06:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep see Macedonia for an example of where someone has put it to good use. --Mysidia (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please keep. There were some terrible revert wars over exactly how the disambig notice at the top of Macedonia should be worded before this template was finally agreed on for that article. I really don't want to see a revert war over its replacement should this template be deleted. It has a use. Please keep. Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
    • comment I came very close to changing my vote to Keep, but then considered that an ad hoc disambiguation statement to handle the very contentious issues that you've very rightly highlighted is as appropriate as a template, that the revert wars should not start over just because the template disappears because the text can be recapitulated exactly as it appears without the template being used. Courtland 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • comment it can be done with {{dablink}} or {{for}} instead. -- User:Docu
  • Delete — Trilobite (Talk) 21:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 10 August PM to 28 August PM — 18 days
Removal from TFD 31 August AM — 20 days

Template:Las Vegas casinos

  • Delete : See Talk Page for template. Short version: Suggest using List of greater Las Vegas resorts. – …Guy M… (soapbox) 08:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author responded to questions about the template on the talk page by removing all text from the template. It was not clear what purpose it was intended to serve. Since it is empty, there is probably no reason to keep it. Vegaswikian 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not bothered whether this is kept or not, but I've re-added the content that was removed, while it's on TFD, and while it's still used by so many pages. sjorford →•← 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The content was not removed while it was on TfD, it was removed before. I think this needs to be returned to the last version before your change. As a piece of additional information, the new Wikipedia:Wikiproject Las Vegas has not included this template in their project, likely because of the problems with the version that was not blanked. Vegaswikian 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • But this makes no sense - what are people voting on? Voting on a blank template is meaningless - if it's going to stay blank, just speedy it. If you're going to vote on it, then obviously there's a possibility it could be kept, so people are voting on what it's going to look like after the vote. Anyway, that's not even the reason I unblanked it - just seeing the message "this template has been blanked..." at the bottom of one of the casino articles looked ugly and out of place. sjorford →•← 08:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Since it is likely to be blanked after this vote, maybe it should have been a speedy since the vote was about the template at the time it was nominated. If you look at the editors talk page that created this template, you will see a long list of images posted by the editor that have been deleted. While it does not affect this vote, it does may one wonder. Vegaswikian 23:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although big, i think this is a very useful template. --ZeWrestler Talk 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per reason by ZeWrestler -michael180 17:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no List of Greater Las Vegas resorts, but there is a List of casinos, which is broken down geographically. There's also a Category:Casinos in Las Vegas. Someone who wanted the information in this template could easily use one of those resources. JamesMLane 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is very useful. It is much easier than finding other pages that have this information. I use this template allot. When a person reading about casinos on the strip, it makes sense that there should be an easy way to browse to other casinos that strike one's fancy. This is the type of thing that makes Wikipedia a pleasure. It happens to not take up very much space at the bottom of a page, either. Sherm. August 24, 2005
    • I agree with you that ease of browsing is great, but the category system can do the job. The top of each article has a hyperlink to Category:Casinos in Las Vegas. You click on the link and you can browse to other casinos. I think that's reasonably easy. It also gives you one-click access to Category:Las Vegas, Nevada (for non-casino points of interest) and Category:Casinos in Nevada (for casinos outside Las Vegas), both of which are likely meanderings for the reader who wants to browse. JamesMLane 11:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 11 August AM to 24 August AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 14 days

Template:Shh

  • Delete: Looks like a vanity/advert link to a movie site. Jpers36 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep:I don't know what you're talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer? why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it's not like it's mine, or that I'm making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they're almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. --Amr Hassan 07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the "external links" section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don't see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, ok.. count how many articles it's used in .. what are templates for anyway? and what harm is it doing right now?--Amr Hassan 08:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia's purpose is not to advertise other websites. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This looks very similer to

{{imdb title}} (t/l) or {{isfdb name}} (t/l) to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different? DES (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link. DES (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in its current form. It's not very useful and does seem to be vanity.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per DES. Carioca 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think it's useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.--DizerX 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, per DES --MarSch 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DES. Havok (T/C) 13:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the delete votes above. DreamGuy 00:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, will somebody delete it or remove the TFD from it already!! --Amr Hassan 13:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless there is some specific issue with the website, which I have not seen evidence of. MosheZadka 14:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per DES. Joeyconnick 17:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because the link is only in the form of domain.com/name (such as the one seen on Sin City page) instead of a harder-to-type form such as IMDb's domain.com/title/ttnumber. Having this template does not make anything easier and does not provide standardization of a complex URL (since the URL is not complex at all). A link to SHH can simply be a regular link, and does not require any special templates. --Hcblue 02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Late Delete. Just use link under "External links" heading. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

period for comment 12 August AM to 29 August PM — 17 days Removed from TFD 30 August AM — 18 days

Template:Npov-intro/Template:POV-intro

  • This is completely unused and should probably be deleted. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, brilliant, this is just the template for the creation science article (and I'm sure a few others). The article itself is usually fine, as critism and supporting arguments have their own sections, but the intro has been causing a lot of problems. Is this template documented? -- Ec5618 11:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect both to Template:POV-section. Good idea but redundant. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep' - and use more widely. The intro is often the most contentious section, and a template that makes that crystal clear is very useful. The "section" version is not clear enough, IMO, when used to refer to an intro (people may not be clear about what it's referring to). Rd232 13:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and list on Wikipedia:Templates. Is there also an in-line version of {npov}; like {dubious} is of {accuracy}? Septentrionalis 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it exists, that would be Template:POV-section like I said above. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • No - put dubious and Pov-section in a page - you'll see the difference. The former is inline, the latter is not - it floats above the line. Rd232 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del per Radiant --MarSch 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. BTW the claim about these being "completely used" simply is not true. I came across this debate though the use of this template on a page. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 18:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rd232. Robert A West 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rd232 and Septentrionalis. DES (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 12 Aug PM to 26 Aug AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 26 August AM — 13 days

Template:Sexual_orientation

I propose deletion for several reasons: One is that this is a topic that, if not seen as inherently POV, at least attracts many POV-warriors. Furthermore, there is no need for this article series box; the subject is hard to reduce to a few articles, and bound to invite heated debates over what should and should not be included. Right now the articles are quite randomly choosen, and that is the improved version -- in the initial one, transgender was listed as a sexual orientation, and the debate on the talk page did not leave the impression that the maker of said template was much willing to discuss that obvious mistake. This is not the first attempt to do an ASB on this (or closely related) topics; see Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed) for a discussion of a previous attempt. Much of the criticism applies here, too. -- AlexR 13:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - information better served by categories than a template. -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There are also a few lists regarding this and similar topics if one wishes for a more ordered reading guide. -- AlexR 13:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a useful navigational tool and provides a fairly compact organization to much of the relevant knowledge. If important things are missing they should be added and organization improved, not just delete the whole thing. AlexR, most of your argument seems to boil down to "I don't want to fight about what goes in this template", which is not a good reason to delete it. Certainly you wouldn't make the argument that we should delete the article on homosexuality just cause people will fight over it? Of course there will be disagreements in this area of Wikipedia, can't be helped, but no one is forcing you to participate. Disclaimer: After this was listed for deletion, I editted it to make it less huge and slightly more readible. Dragons flight 14:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • You are misreading my arguments - the "what goes in it" is just one part of the problem; and unlike an article the real estate space in an ASB is very limited. -- AlexR 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well I reread your statement including references to "POV-warriors", "heated debate" and what you perceive as a failed discussion on transgender. Forgive me, but I still get the impression that you are complaining primarily about the difficulty in getting people to agree. If you have another argument, could you please try making it a little clearer for me? Also, how many articles do you think it needs? There are already 31 links there. Adding a few more wouldn't hurt, or it could be condensed by linking to list pages covering the appropriate topic, rather than all the pages individually. Still I don't see deletion as an appropriate solution to what I percieve as a content dispute. Dragons flight 18:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • As I already said, I think the very format of an article series box is unsuitable for this subject - and I linked to a page going into more detail already. Subjects as complex as this one are, in my opinon, much better served by lists and categories; hence, no such ASB is the solution of my choice. (And as can be seen from the article linked above, that is not exactly a position I've only held since yesterday.) And of course the fact that it is an extremely controversial subject does not help, either. Those, however, are two arguments, not one. As for "how many" - that is a pretty irrelevant question. It is which ones go into that are the problem, not how many. Should - for example - such an ASB try to go from "homosexual and heterosexual", or from "gay and lesbian", or maybe from "androphilia and gynophilia"? Cases can be made for all three apporaches, but if they were put into one ASB that think would drown the article. OTOH, if one approach is choosen, it would be entirely appropriate, and from some points of view even necessary, to make a box for the other two approaches. Not a desireable idea, if you ask me. -- AlexR 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at least for further discussion. I only created it 4 days ago, and I think the principle of a seriesbox is a useful one. It complements, rather than replaces, categories, because it highlights the major articles of the topic. Obviously there will be disagreement about what they are, and maybe about what the topic is, which will be handled in the usual Wikipedia way. (I'm mystified by AlexR's comment about my not being willing to discuss the inclusion of transgender; I'd said 3 days ago "Let's see if there are any more comments".) Rd232 15:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You are? That link very obviously did not belong there, so what was there to wait about? Nevertheless, I, like you (hopefully), waited, and nothing came. So I removed the entry, but actually, this does not make this ASB any more useful. -- AlexR 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Regardless of the intentions of the creator, it's bound to end up being used for POV pushing, jguk 17:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify and Delete, doesn't have a linear series to it per WP:CSL. -Splash 19:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Although WP:CSL is of unclear status, this does not prevent it being used as a reason for a vote. I think that this particular point from CSL is a good one, so my vote stands. -Splash 17:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify and delete. The inherent POV attraction of this template can be seen already. Here's a question that will be among the first things that's going to attract POV-warriors and trolling: "Why pink?" Tomer TALK 19:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I like the idea but doesn't fit the rules on WP:CSL. Changed to no vote because of below comment. We do, after all, have {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} and similar. ~~ N (t/c) 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What is WP:CSL, Really? I have never heard mention of WP:CSL before, which is more than a little odd given the number of navigational templates that come through here. There is no tag for {proposed}, {guideline}, {policy}, etc. Further there are abundant examples of navigational templates which wouldn't meet the strict linear series rule. Based on this discussion, it would in fact appear there is little consensus for that part of the guideline anyway. I am going to bring this issue up at the Village Pump. Dragons flight 00:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename ? I don't really know how to do this voting thing. But my vote would be that this is worthy of being kept, but should be renamed to something like 'sexuality' or 'sexual orientation issues'. Because it isn't really about sexual orientation, is it? It's about sexual orientation as it relates to politics and society. If this were about sexual orientation it would contain stuff like "lgpt performers" or "strapons" and stuff. Also, it might make more sense to make this be a separate category page type thing instead of a box that's always hanging there. Awk 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad idea but should be discussed in a more central place. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Dan | Talk 00:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you do keep this, change the color scheme to something other than pink. To me as a homosexual male that just seems so... stereotypical. :P Espantajo 00:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the pink came from the marketing template it was derived from. I don't mind what colour it is! Rd232 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • bad title and as a result suboptimal cohesion between included articles. Keep, since those are not reasons for deletion as long as it is used. --MarSch 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's well used and links to various related topics in just the same way that Template:Christianity does, for example. I don't see any reason to delete it. — OwenBlacker 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per OwenBlacker. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename. I generally prefer series boxes above categories, but this one isn't about sexual orientation. It's about homosexuality, with a few token "where does orientation come from" links thrown in, and a link to heterosexuality second to homosexuality. At the very least it should be renamed Template:Homosexuality. It shouldn't exist in its current form at its current location. It could, however, be useful if retooled or shortened. But if it's shortened enough, maybe a category is better, even though I don't like categories. --Golbez 08:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
As noted on the talk page, I wasn't sure what the focus of it should be - "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality". I still don't. Rd232 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see a reason for this being deleted? The two given in the nomination text are that it is and/or will attract 'POV warriors' but I do not see that we should be forced to delete anything for that reason, else a whole myriad of other articles should be nominated too, the second reason given was that there are too many potential articles which should and/or could be included, are there any which are actually missing from the template which anyone feels should go in? (or visa-versa?) finally the third reason is that a category is more suited to the job, I don't think this is the case personally, I think ASBs allow the main topics to be navigated to much easier. -- Joolz 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: My comment was altered ([1]) to include a vote, usually when someone explicitly writes "Comment:" they don't want it to be counted as a vote either way. Since there's likely to be no response to my questions which would satisfy me enough to vote delete, I will vote keep. -- Joolz 16:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:32, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Homosexuality or LGBT, good idea. ~~ N (t/c) 19:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve as per comments above. This is just a few days old. Give it a chance improve. If after it fully matures, the template clearly does not work as a navigational tool then it can be deleted. Everything at Wikipedia has the potential for POV abuse. That is one reason why we all edit and watch pages. -- Samuel Wantman 19:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve per Samuel Wantman. Havok (T/C) 16:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep: It directs people to other topics on similar subjects from the same page in a way that categories don't --Cherry blossom tree 22:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to Template:Homosexuality. David | Talk 11:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Template:LGBT sidebar and lose the pink colour scheme lest this be reported to the fashion police. ;) --carlb 16:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Repurpose this template to focus on GLBT/LGBT issues exclusively. This template can and will create serious problems with some heterosexuals and with people who do not support the ideas of sexual orientation. Not saying it's right, just saying it'll happen.—Kbolino 01:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Improve as per Samuel Wantman Spaltavian 05:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

This thread's been going for nearly a fortnight (and the note at the top of this page says seven days for consensus). Votes thusfar: Delete: 6; Keep: 12; Rename (inc "Delete or rename" and "keep and rename"): 5.

Looks like there's no consensus to delete, to me, so I'm removing the {{tfd}} tag. — OwenBlacker 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 12 August PM to 24 August PM — 12 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM &mdash 12 days

Template:Green; Template:Red; Template:Blue

I have no idea how many other of these there are, but I have just noticed them cropping up in WP:FAC and other places. I think they are as bad as {{object}} and its ilk, which were deleted a few months ago. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • ugly, confusing, don't work right delete Mozzerati 19:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • keep.What is your evidence that green and red and blue don't work right other than the {tfd}, which will go away again? Septentrionalis 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'f your suggesting deletion, please don't give a worthless reason. Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've said it before, and I fully expect to say it again. TFD is not, at least in my opinion, a way to go about regulating user behavior. If you are offended by colored doodads, then write a style guideline on voting and get consensus approval for it. However, right now there is nothing wrong with these templates and if someone wants to pretty up user or talk space, I know of no consensus saying it is forbidden. While we are at it, I noticed that {{Red}} has actually been used in a number of drug-related articles to create red warning tags. Dragons flight 20:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have created {{tfd-inline}} for the purposes of having a TFD template that can fit into the flow of text without breaking it into multiple lines. Obviously you can see the effect of this on the red, green, and blue mentions by Septentrionalis above. Dragons flight 20:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless.  Grue  20:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not as bad as the other ones we deleted because comments were made that the images increased load times, that argument can't be made here. Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • ‹The template Green.3B_Template:Red.3B_Template:Blue is being considered for deletion.› Keep, great fun. Flowerparty talk 02:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete oh do come along. Dunc|☺ 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it's kinda handy in using the formatting. --Amr Hassan 13:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful for those who find them useful. For those who don't, well forget about them. They're doing no harm. The JPS 16:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I agree with Dragons flight. ALoan should have initiated a discussion regarding the behavior to which he/she objects, instead of attempting to eliminate the legitimate means by which said behavior is accomplished. —Lifeisunfair 16:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Whilst overuse of color is bad there are legitimate uses for it and having to write html for it is a pita. Plugwash 22:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and subst, per Plugwash. If the user is expecting one use for it, they don't want it changing in the future. It is potentially useful for the non-HTML fluent among us. I won't use it, but I have no objection to others using it properly (i.e. in relevant situations and with subst:, as the template call is unnecessary). [[smoddy]] 23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment using subst on templates like this is a double edged sword, on the one hand it reduces server load slightly (yes i know netoholic has been crusading against templates on the basis of a very vauge comment by jamesday but when i actually tried to speak to jamesday about the issue he seemed to ignore my questions as if it wasn't all that significant after all). However subst also dumps the html from the template into the wikitext making it harder to follow. Plugwash 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow, I never thought I'd be defending Netoholic. Please read WP:AUM - Jamesday is likely not answering you because he has lots of things on his hands, and it's been debated to death already. This issue is very real. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have read that page and also its corresponding talk page and some associated revert wars. If the devs really thought this was important don't you think they would have gone through jimbo rather than making fairly vague comments like the one on that page. Plugwash 16:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del, how lazy can you get? Besides if someone uses a template like this you have to look it up to see what it does, while a simple font-tag is much clearer and cleaner. When programming you also don't make functions for every tidbit, then also don't make a template for every trivial task. It's just stupid. You need only see the font version once to know how it works and if not just keep a copy on your user page. Hey Radiant, don't defend Netoholic and not vote. Defend AND vote. --MarSch 17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's less typing, and the meaning is obvious once you look at the page (not the wikitext). ~~ N (t/c) 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We shouldn't be colouring text, and definitely not with the font tag. ed g2s • talk 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't hurt, might help. -- BD2412 talk 13:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, someone should put together a list of all the templates for easy reference and add the colors that use 6 digit codes (eg. color="f0f0f0"). Where can we look up these codes, btw? NoSeptember 13:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not use subst: as it obfuscates the source. If you don’t think a particular bit of text should be coloured change it, and if you don’t like the font tag change the templates. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not doing any harm. Some may fid it useful. —Celestianpower háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 12:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 12 August PM to 23 August PM — 11 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 12 days

Template:Fantasy

A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on. DES (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (nom) DES (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its "value" are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete. --Corvun 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful. Improve rather than destruct. The JPS 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify. It's a good idea but it's far too big and unwieldy. I'd like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template's talk page or the fantasy talk page. --Corvun 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The "fantasy authors" and "list of fantasy authors" should be dropped to just "fantasy authors" and that promoted up one level so it remains. Courtland 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I've divided the template into "articles" and "categories", with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%.
  • Keep and correct if needed. Halibutt 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, still needs trimming. I personally find vertical navboxes to be intrusive and ugly and prefer horizontal ones at the bottoms of articles, but that's a content issue. -Sean Curtin 01:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I discussed my reasons for suggesting the deletion of this template at some length at Template talk:Fantasy#Why suggest deletion? with Corvun, the creator of this tempalte. I urge people here to take a look at that exchange. DES (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful. CanadianCaesar 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 14 August PM to 17 August AM — 2 days
Removed from TFD 4 September PM — 22 days

Template:Zelda series and Template:Mario series

Why do we need these when we have categories? They're huge and useless. Andre (talk) 04:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Easy access to Zelda and Mario games. There. -- A Link to the Past 04:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Corvun 06:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful navigational template, Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but change that godawful color!--Kross 07:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but might I suggest that they are somewhat overly large? Using abbreviations may help, rather than repeating the phrase "super mario world" five times. Radiant_>|< 08:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful navigational template. It goes at the bottom of the article, so it's not like it's getting in the way of anything important. Nohat 08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Categories can't be organized like these navigational templates can. BlankVerse ∅ 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And I've changed the colors to something hopefully less garish. Coffee 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the colors are boring now, but there's no good reason to get rid of the template.Rhindle The Red 18:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree on the colors. Is there any way to see the CSS sheets used by wikipedia? ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:56, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  • Keep: Very useful navagation aide. I don't particularly care about the color much. Fieari 22:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any reason why to delete these. These pretty much define the purpose of navigational templates. --Titoxd 07:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously useful. CanadianCaesar 07:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 09:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Navigational templates are more useful than categories, since they can list entries in the poper order while categories can only do alphabetical order. — P Ingerson (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very good tool, although it really needs cleaning up to include SMW2:YI and other things — P Ingerson (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2005 (BST)
    • Forgot to vote Keep. Also, Ingerson, Yoshi's Island IS there. -- A Link to the Past 14:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Very useful. Havok (T/C) 13:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't know how many times i've used this template, but i know its saved me a lot of time searching for various zelda related articles. --ZeWrestler Talk 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Flowerparty talk 01:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Simple but incredibly useful. Saved me many minutes of typing. PowerGamer6 20:28, 19 August 2005 EST
  • Pwned... I mean Keep. Navigational assistant's despite redundancy only add's to Wikipedias ease of use. - UnlimitedAccess 15:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep without a doubt. Why get rid of something that aids in navigation? 69.250.25.213 17:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep very useful Hbdragon88 23:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful; the Mario and Zelda series are well known and contain lots of games in the franchise --RealWingus 00:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are good for navigation through the Mario and Zelda series. --MichTheWeird 17:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both, but change that color (Mario) and make the thing smaller (Mario); it dwarfs some of the smaller articles like Yoshi Topsy Turvy. --gakon5 (talk) 21:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both I've said this before on other template pages, a template for a game series is VERY useful, especially for readers who glance over the categories link.Amren (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 16 August to 23 August — 8 days Removed from TFD 24 August — 9 days

Template:OriginalResearch (and Category:Original research disputes)

"The novelty of research or terms used in this article is disputed." This is a rather obscure (and mostly unused) form of dispute resolution, and we already have far too many confusing variations on {{disputed}}. Radiant_>|< 08:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems like a perfectly appropriate way to identify cases of alleged original research. Also I don't see how it's a form of dispute resolution, since it simply directs users to the talk page. Thus, unless it actually does overlap with another template, keep. -- Visviva 13:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. The real objection is that it duplicates Template:original research, which is more clearly phrased, and is named more in template style; compare {cfd} which is lower case throughout. But if someone wants to call it OriginalResearch, I have no problem with that. Septentrionalis 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. This one is too wordy and confusing. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:original research; there is too much in here that is said more clearly elsewhere.-Splash 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 7 August AM to 12 August PM — 5 days Removed from TFD 24 August AM — 17 days

Template:SOreligiousfreedomATW

  • Delete. This template is massive, containing a link for every country in a world. Most of the links are red and likely to stay red, because we simply don't need a Status of religious freedom article in countries where it simply isn't article-worthy. It's kinda like having the article Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union, then having a template with 192 links to Involuntary settlements in (country). Coffee 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The template’s author hasn’t edited in six months. I have removed the red links, leaving the blue. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep updated version. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep handy. --Amr Hassan 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Or Replace with
    [[{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}]]
    [[:Category:{{{1}}}|Other articles]] in this category
    [[Category:{{{1}}}|Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005]] which wouldn't need updating when a new article is added. Septentrionalis 19:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 17 August AM to 26 August PM — 9 days Removed from TFD 27 August AM — 10 days

Template:Major Cities of Tamil Nadu

Very subjective box. People have started including their cities arbitrarily. District headquarters in Tamil Nadu or some such list would be more objective. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. This might be a good time to Be Bold! and go ahead and edit the template, and perhaps even rename it. It doesn't sound like a reason to delete the template. BlankVerse ∅ 14:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify and delete. There's no particular connection (linear series per WP:CSL) between these that is served better by a template than by a cat. (Or even by both a template and a cat).-Splash 19:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to Template:Tamil Nadu. This looks like the beginnings of a perfectly acceptable navigational template, much like Template:New York or Template:Milwaukee, Wisconsin --BaronLarf 17:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 4 August AM to 10 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 8 days

Template:Lynch

Another director template, same reasons as the previous directors templates see the previous discussion here. Categorize and delete. ∞Who?¿? 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep!. I've used the same argument every time a template for a major film director has come up (and will keep using it). Many of the average vistors to the Wikipedia who will look at one film by a director will also want to look up one or more other films by the same director. Instead of forcing that to be a two step process (either going to a category or to the director's main page), it is much easier to work with a well-designed navigation template. BlankVerse ∅ 12:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for consistency. I very much agree with BlankVerse, and the deletion of the other templates does decrease the wiki's navagational functionality. However, if we are voting on this template, there is no reason why Lynch should have one if Spielberg, Hitch and Kubrick are denied one. The JPS 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Keep pending advanced discussion. The JPS 17:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Same reson as for the shark template below, interesting that BlankVerse has a strong keep for this and a delete for the shark one. The only different is that there are 350+ species of sharks, but there will never be that many wikipedia articles. I think we need to do something about nav templates, as it is now this is very chaotic and non consistant, I suggest to implement a list of related articles that can be under the 'in other languages' box. Then it will not take much space and can be much longer than a nav template today. Not sure if it can be done with wikimedia today, I asked at Wikipedia:Bug_report, no answer yet. Stefan 04:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep For better overview and navigation. --ThomasK 09:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: There needs to be some policy on director's templates. The wiki should be consistent, and this template shouldn't be kept if Hitch et. al. were deleted. Again, I vehemently agree with the keep votes. The JPS 15:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep For ThomasK's reasons and the fact that any sort of easy-to-read template always makes the wiki more user-friendly and presents information immediately. I also urge very, very strongly to reinstate the other deleted director templates, which I felt were very helpful and I was shocked to see them go. It's a shame we have people who actually think that making the wiki less legible is a good idea. KEEP THESE TEMPLATES!!! Gsgeorge 16:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete. While I'm unhappy that useful director templates keep being deleted, it's unfair if this template stays and other director templates go. Either delete this template or undelete Spielberg, Hitchcock et al. --Titoxd 22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a problem, yes. This TFD has generated quite an interest for the 'keep' camp, and it might be worth continuing it elsewhere to achieve some sort of consistency. Hopefully we can get the other templates reinstated, and the deletionists/anti-template brigade will leave us alone. The JPS 23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Hitch, Spielberg, etc JW 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep. The template aids in user naviagation, conveys information and is compact. "Consistency" can not be a reason to delete this template, since the other director template have only been remove recently, and discussion has only just begun. --Commander Keane 06:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify and delete for consistency and easier navigating. Radiant_>|< 16:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Clicking an additional link each time a user wants to switch articles is meant to be easier? Keep the category too: we should maximise the wiki's capabilities. The consistency argument (to which I was a subcriber) is redundant now that there are more keep participants (for a possible undelete and wider policy discussion) The JPS 17:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The "director" templates are useful; it was wrong to delete the others and they should be brought back. Atlant 23:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't believe this discuission is even happening. Like all the director templates, this is very useful and hurts nobody. If we're worried about space, just make it horizontal instead of vertical. The deletion of the other director templates was absurd, too. The Singing Badger 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 2 August PM to 9 August PM — 7 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 8 days

Template:NMGovernors

Why is this needed? Many of the pages don't even exist that are listed in the template. --WikiFan04Talk 3:11, 3 Aug 2005 (CDT)

  • Delete and listify, would suffice. ∞Who?¿? 08:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--BaronLarf 00:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep Jack Cox 02:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Listify replace with {sucessionBox} which would link to list. Septentrionalis 02:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 3 August AM to 10 August AM — 7 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 7 days

Template:Seemain and Template:SeeMain

Note: Voting suspended. This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through "What links here". The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted.

  • Delete: Redirected in earlier TfD, has now been orphaned except for some Talk and User pages. SEWilco 01:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Stbalbach 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Template:main, or even better, template:see details is enough I think. This one seems to imply some kind of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that this change was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator's original intention and the tag's overwhelmingly popular application. —Lifeisunfair 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking