Template talk:Afd footer/Archive 1

Rewrite
Comments on the re-write? --Ben Brockert 23:49, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Looks much improved to me. Maybe I helped to bring about this change as I tried to add Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), which was a real pain (and I received help from someone else, maybe you Ben?). I'm still not sure if it was the comma or the parens that caused the problem... -Rholton 02:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was me. I think it was the comma and the parens; it's certainly not the first time it has happened. My objective was to show the difference between the first replacement and the last two, and more explicitly remove special characters. You can actually have a few other characters in the name, but the instructions are long enough as they are. --Ben Brockert 02:46, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion v. Add to this discussion
I think it should be "Discussion". "Add to this discussion" implies that by clicking on the link you will be editing the discussion page, which (sadly) you will not. Until we can fix that bug, then it should just say what it links to instead of implying an action. In either case, whenever this footer is modified, Template:vfd should be modified accordingly so that the "on that page" link can go to the correct anchor. I'm placing a comment to that effect in the page for any future editors. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2004 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "add to this discussion" because so many people were still putting their comments on the main page. I was guessing that readers were misinterpreting the "discussion" link as a link to the article's discussion (Talk) page.  It seems to work because I have to move fewer comments off the main page when we say "add to this discussion. Rossami
 * Why not "View deletion discussion" or something of the sort? Right now I like neither. Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * You can already view the discussion on the VfD page, though, so that's rather unclear: "view what? I'm already viewing it!".    &mdash;Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 05:57, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

Subst?
Is there any reason why this footer advocates the use of instead of  ? I thought we were moving towards templates, and I would have changed it myself, but I figured there might be an database implementation consideration why this was better for a highly used template like vfd. Can anyone say which is better? I'd rather have the template, because our vfd anchor format changes so frequently. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2004 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text for old discussion of this. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:54, 21 June 2004 (UTC)

Why
(Added bcz (not knowing already mentioned) i promised to when i changed it back to subst, and bcz it may help prevent the next well-intentioned breaking of the system.)

Because only 5 expansions of the same template get done per page. (I think true even if they're in subst format, but with subst the restriction only comes into play if you nominate 6 or more pages in the same edit -- since a subst expansion permanently becomes text (and ceases to be a subst) when it's saved.)

It's not a bug, it's an important security feature, so don't bother asking to change it. The link above probably goes into the details, for those interested. --Jerzy(t) 01:11, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
 * Why would you have more than 5 VFD notices on the same page? Using subst: violates Avoid self-references. And if one wants to stop people from changing it simply protecting the page is available.  anthony (see warning) 10:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible new format?
I don't really like the misleading "Add to this discussion" so how's this instead?

To list a page for deletion: (This creates a separate debate page for each discussion, which prevents edit conflicts.)
 * 1) Go to the page you want to delete and insert    at the top of that page.
 * 2) If the page is an advertisement, enclose any links in nowiki tags like this: ""
 * 3) Come back to this page and copy the following text:""
 * 4) Edit this page and paste the text below the last heading.
 * 5) Replace Page name in each line with the name of the page that you are proposing for deletion.
 * 6) Save page.
 * 7) Click the Discussion link and write why, according to our deletion policy, the page should be deleted.
 * 8) Save your edit.

Alternate Method (This adds the discussion to the bottom of the main page.)
 * 1) Go to the page you want to delete and insert   at the top of that page.
 * 2) If the page is an advertisement, enclose any links in nowiki tags like this: ""
 * 3) Come back to this page and copy the following text: ""
 * 4) Edit this page and paste the text below the last heading.
 * 5) Replace Page name with the exact name of the page.
 * 6) Below the section header, write why, according to our deletion policy, the page should be deleted.
 * 7) Save your edit.

It needs work, but it's a start. Right now I think having "Add to this discussion" in the title is too misleading, and besides this will reduce one click. Oh, and as for why not just put the link in the title: The ToC will be ruined by the inclusion of the whole URL. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 14 July 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally, I will do it either way. But as a reminder of recent history, that's basically the template that we had under WikiMedia and many people fought against it.  They said repeatedly on the old VfD talk page that it was too much code and/or too confusing.  A couple of us were constantly moving things from the main page into the template format.  The wording may not be perfect with the current format but at least most people are using it.  Rossami 21:17, 14 July 2004 (UTC)

Future considerations

 * If you modify this template, please modify Template:vfd accordingly so that the "on that page" link still works
 * The right long-term solution for this complicated footer is probably to replace the whole VfD nomination process with a dedicated special page similar to the "move" page. I have some thoughts but don't have the skills to create it.  Anyone know who did that page? Rossami 19:42, 16 July 2004 (UTC)

Moving the subpage
I have made a number of changes to the footer template. Rossami 19:42, 16 July 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Returned the instructions to use  .  See Wikipedia_talk:Boilerplate_text for the discussion.
 * 2) Based on Johnleemk's suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, I have changed the template from recommending a subpage of VfD to recommending a subpage of the article's Talk page. It may save a few keystrokes during maintenance and the template feature in VfD will work either way.
 * 3) Moved the "Add to this discussion link" down from the header to the first line so the "at that page" links work again.
 * 4) Updated Template:vfd accordingly.
 * 5) Took out the "Alternate Method" section because everyone seems to have adopted the primary approach by now.
 * 6) Tweaked the hidden comment to "go back".
 * 7) Removed the anti-advertising instruction for now because:
 * 8) Anything to streamline these instructions is a good thing.
 * 9) It's extra work that may be made moot in a just few days (when the entire page is deleted at the end of the VfD process).
 * 10) If the vote supports keeping the page, the links may have to be put back.
 * 11) Sometimes, clicking through the link can help confirm the accusation that the article is an ad.
 * 12) Regardless, anyone can be bold and delete (or disable) the links anytime.
 * 13) If the page is an advertisement, enclose any links in nowiki tags like this: ""

Alternate Method
Re item 5 in the preceding section, i am pretty sure the dependent clause of
 * Took out the "Alternate Method" section because everyone seems to have adopted the primary approach by now.

is false, and that that appearance results from people, including me, who have been converting Alternate-Method quasi-templates to main-Method ones. One lower-bound measure of the frequency of that scenario is the number of quasi-templates that lack the comment, or have a hand written comment that differs in wording from this template's wording of the corresponding day and time. A precise measure would, i think, entail looking at a random sample of VfD-history-provided file compares via the "last" links. I'm restoring the Alternate Method instructions, pending further argument, especially in light of a VfD summary reading
 * Dear god, there's got to be a simpler way to do this!

--Jerzy(t) 01:20, 18 July 2004 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows
The old VfD footer contained erroneous links to "/VfD" that had to be manually rewritten. I've fixed it up so that the code will be correct when copied and pasted (e.g.,  instead of  .)  If I screwed up, I apologize. --Ardonik 07:12, 17 July 2004 (UTC)
 * That change was deliberate but perhaps I was too bold in making the change. I was trying to respond to some of the concerns above.  I see two open questions.  Let's put them up for discussion and see whether or not it should be switched back. Rossami 21:56, 26 July 2004 (UTC)

Should the "add to this discussion" link be on the same line?

Should the discussion sub-page be a sub of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion or a sub of the article? (Either way, the new Deletion process requires us to keep the page and not copy the discussion anywhere.)

Unlinking Ads
I don't know enough about the ads issue to put that back w/o further discussion, but it seems to me letting an ad use us to build up five days worth of "linked from WP" points w/Google may be a sufficient incentive to make this spam worth while.

And on the other hand, the disabled URL's text can be pasted into your browser's address pane, so disabling is not a significant barrier to research.

Both are reasons the ad-disabling language probably should go back. --Jerzy(t) 04:33, 18 July 2004 (UTC)

I'll take further silence as assent to the original view that delinking the ads is worth the small burden of suggesting it in this footer template. --Jerzy(t) 07:31, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

Proposed question for WP:RFD: (edits of this section do not have to be signed) Should Template:VfDFooter include instructions to de-link all the ads on a page when the page is nominated for deletion?
 * Pros
 * Even 5 days of Google points for "linked from Wikipedia" is an incentive to Wikispam
 * Cons
 * Clicking through the link to verify the accusation of "ad" is a little harder (but only a very little)
 * It makes the already cumbersome VfD Footer instructions just that little bit worse


 * Yes, should be delinked as a matter of course. --Ianb 07:06, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

re: the Warning comment
On 19 Sep 04, Guanaco removed the line from these instructions. I believe that the warning has been successful at reducing the number of edits to the main VfD page. What was the downside of that instruction and is it worth the increased maintenance of monitoring the VfD page for misapplied comments? Rossami 02:01, 21 September 2004 (UTC)
 * That template doubled the amount of wikitext on VfD and greatly increased the amount of HTML generated. We could use a warning in bold at the top of the page instead of excessive amounts of HTML comments. Guanaco 02:11, 21 September 2004 (UTC)
 * If comments get copied from the wikitext to the HTML output, I think that's a software bug. &mdash;AlanBarrett 08:31, 21 September 2004 (UTC)
 * We've had the warning in bold at the top and it wasn't working. Too many people jump straight to their article and don't read the header information.  I think the only thing that might work (besides the warning comment) would be the suppression of the section edit feature but I didn't think that was possible.  Rossami 13:04, 21 September 2004 (UTC)
 * I added to Template:VfDFooter, but perhaps it belongs in Votes for deletion instead?  &mdash;AlanBarrett 17:30, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

Clarification of which edit button to use
I just added a warning in bold to use the top edit button to add new entries, as I see the previous behavior has suddenly changed, which caught me out big time. --Ianb 21:54, 21 September 2004 (UTC)

Copy and Paste Recommendation
Every once in a while, someone will take quite a bit of time in getting every step accomplished, which can be confusing, such as when one sees the subst:vfd header on a page, but it doesn't yet link to anything, or such as when everything is linked, but the nominator takes their time in writing their reason for wishing to delete a page. I'd like to add something like this to the bottom of the footer:

Note: In order to ensure that too much time does not elaspe between steps 1 and 8, it is recommended that you create a copy-and-paste template for yourself, in which you have made the above substitutions (replacing "PageName" with the article's name) and have pre-written your reason for wishing the page to be deleted. This is an example:

paste at the top of the article page paste below the last heading on this page ===Nonsense===                              paste to Votes for deletion/Nonsense I think this page is utter nonsense... ...along with your already-written reason ~                                            ...and the infamous 4 tildes.

What does everyone think? func(talk) 17:56, 12 October 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I object, but I don't think it comes up enough to be a serious concern. And shouldn't it be four tildes? Five gives you the current date or something instead of a full signature. - RedWordSmith 04:17, 14 October 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, 4 tildes. I'm in the habit of copy & pasting my sig. :) No, it doesn't happen too much, but it's annoying when it does. func(talk) 12:21, 14 October 2004 (UTC)

Order of steps
I'm not going to be bold here because this is a rather crucial piece of text. I'm wondering: shouldn't you first create the VfD subpage, and then update VfD with the link? If you do it the other way around, people who are watching VfD might just get a broken link when they go to the page, and won't see when the actual entry is present (as that's a new article). This wastes crucial time.

I propose this is shuffled around to produce the following:

To list a page named PageName for deletion:
 * (wherever PageName occurs below, use the name of the page to be deleted instead.)


 * 1) Edit the page you want to delete, insert    (not just   ) at the top of that page, and save page.
 * 2) Follow the "this page's entry" link to   and add a (crucial) link and sub-section heading:
 * 3) Under the section, describe, in accordance with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted. Don't forget to sign and datestamp (using ~ ).
 * 4) Save page.
 * 5) Come back to this page and copy the following text:
 * 6) Edit this page, using [ this edit link], or the button at the top of this page, or the "[edit]" link beside the heading with today's date, but never the "[edit]" link beside another VfD-ed page's heading; paste the copied text below the last VfD-ed page's  call.
 * 7) Don't forget to replace PageName with the name of the page that you are proposing for deletion.
 * 8) Save page.
 * 1) Don't forget to replace PageName with the name of the page that you are proposing for deletion.
 * 2) Save page.

Am I missing something terribly obvious? I've actually been doing this myself forever. JRM 03:53, 13 November 2004 (UTC)


 * It probably makes sense since the "this page's entry" now links correctly. That's a fairly new fix, though, and has not always been stable.  Be bold and give it a try.  Rossami (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes to VfDFooter
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed FT2's change to template:VfDFooter:

"Remember that a simple assertion such as "the page is (whatever)" is meaningless if you do not show good evidence that it should be deleted rather than any other action."

This doesn't seem right to me. Some things are obvious deletes, like vanity articles, and a simple assertion that this is the case is all that's needed; no other action, such a redirect, even makes any sense for many of these. Yes, there are some misfires, but that's what VfD is about - attempting to determine if articles should be kept or deleted. - RedWordSmith 03:30, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Under the section, describe, in accordance with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted." That covers it. What evidence can be given for a page being deletion material other than the page itself? A dictionary definition of vanity? I changed it back. --Ben Brockert 01:47, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an inclusionist ploy to discount one-word judgements as inherently invalid. As an inclusionist myself, I would have hoped for a more subtle approach. Arguing why, even if something particular is "vanity", it should still remain, for example. Let's face it&mdash;on inclusionists rests the burden of convincing the deletionists why they should not all follow their gut and rake up the Delete votes; forcing them to use a language that doesn't contain any of the "bad words" is like Newspeak. JRM 02:18, 11 December 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the above. What i do know is, if someone's going to say "I want to have article X deleted", they should at least say why, more than just "It sucks" or "its X" or "its Y".  A bit of thought and more than a word chosen from WP:DP is in order. In most cases its inadequate to say "it is unencyclopedic" or "its incapable of being fixed" without justification why. Sometimes all one gets is a list of pretexts.


 * If someone is going to post a request for deletion and ask others to vote, they at least can be reminded by VfD that part of ANY wiki page is the need to think carefully about the grounds for it, and cite them. If it was any other article, they'd be asked to add NPOV information or support their views stated, and not just be considered okay to say "It's X" (ie, "I think it's X") or support a page with spurious reasoning. I can't see that applies any less here. FT2 04:34, 11 December 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you. The problem is, most others do not (they may agree on paper, but will not give up their summary rulings in practice). Wiki is about consensus; if the majority of VfD voters think such quickshots are valid enough, then you and I can try to open a discussion and change policy, but we can't just step in and mess with the templates to reflect our wishes. Wikipedia is not consistent, and neither are Wikipedians. If you want to talk this out and get people to agree (as they obviously do not now) go to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion and state your case there, citing appropriate earlier decisions and precedents elsewhere if you want. Write explicit policy and open a vote on it if you have to. Making a bold change to "remind" people how they "should" be doing things is usually less productive. Again, I agree with your plan, just not its execution. JRM 12:58, 11 December 2004 (UTC)

To save a few keystrokes....and a wee bit of space...
Seems to me that rather than putting when listing Bellybutton for deletion, we could just put. Is there some possible problem with that I've not considered? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:02, 19 February 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the event of moves, vandalism, etc, we want the full title. Besides, Bellybutton already saves you typing. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

VFD nomination process clarification
I feel that the nomination procedure needs slight clarification. I think it should read:

Under the section, describe, in accordance with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted and clearly make it obvious what you feel what action should be taken for the nominated article. Don't forget to sign and datestamp (using ~ ).

Where the bold text is my suggested change. What does everyone think? -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2005 (UTC)


 * As the title is "votes for deletion" (not votes for merging, votes for tranwikiing, or test cases for deletion), it seems to me that absent any other statement any nomination should be read as a vote in favor deletion. I would be surprised if a significant number of nominators expected such nominations would be taken any other way. -R. fiend 06:47, 17 February 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think so, too, but I know of at least one closer who doesn't count the nomination as a delete vote unless it's explicitly spelled out; I can't recall who it is. Maybe it would be easier to change the instructions for closers to assume it's a delete unless otherwise noted.  Although, if otherwise noted, why would it be on VfD?  (Yes, I know that sometimes someone will tag a VfD and forget to list it, so someone else tidies up for them).  Joyous 12:02, 17 February 2005 (UTC)


 * The admin you are thinking of might be AllyUnion, the nominator, which is one reason why I think this is a little more important than it first appears; it has meant the difference between keeping and deleting a few articles. I agree with most of the comments below, though I think most, if not all, of dbenbenn's are pretty clear delete votes, even if not strong ones Keep in mind the nominator can change their vote if (in the Jarvis Family mentioned below, for example) the article is rewritten so it does establish notability. I suppose the admin can use thier judgement when looking at votes that, for example, are phrased as genuine questions (GRider has been doing alot of that the past few days), but not when the question is obviously facetious (e.g. "Do we really need shit like this spoiling wikipedia's reputation as a legitimate encyclopedia?"). The cases of genuine ambiguity are pretty rare it seems to me (I might have to except the recent noms of GRider, however), and it might be best to ask the nominator in cases of real ambiguity when it means the difference between a keep or a delete. -R. fiend 20:21, 17 February 2005 (UTC)

In a spirit of scientific inquiry, I decided to count how many nominations did not (in my opinion) necessarily imply a vote to delete. I looked at February 12, the oldest day currently listed on VfD. Of 66 nominations, I counted about 26 where the nominator didn't have an opinion, or that opinion was not to delete. Examples: Note that many of these I would count as "delete" votes. I'm just pointing out that many nominations aren't totally clear. dbenbenn | talk 15:18, 17 February 2005 (UTC)
 * Hepa. "How is this article useful???"  (No opinion expressed.)
 * Janice Dean. "I'm not sure that this news announcer is notable." (Nominator is also not sure she isn't notable.)
 * Jarvis Family. "doesnt establish notability."  (That's a reason to clean it up.  Non-notability hasn't been established, either.)
 * Binilnilium. "do we really want ... in the wikipedia?"  (Question, not statement.)
 * Somewhere I Belong. "at the very least belongs as a section on the album page." (That is, merge.)
 * Habbo rares. "Doesn't seem notable."  (Not quite the same as "not notable.")
 * Yeniche. "Vanity?"
 * A.Dellfina & T.Dellacroix. "A real issue with notability. Also seems like an advertisement."  (Does this mean the article is a real issue with notability, or that is has a real issue with notability?)
 * These are basically examples of the many different ways that people say "This article is not notable. It should be deleted." Some people don't express this as explicitly as others, but I believe that every nomination is an implicit vote for deletion. Carrp | Talk 16:11, 17 February 2005 (UTC)

The reason I ask if the text should be added is that, granted, implicitly the nominator's vote is delete, but not all the lines are clear. I believe, there are rare instances where the content is to be moved elsewhere, like BJAODN, and the article to be deleted permanently. There are instances where a VfD might be nominated for Renaming, as one can see from Votes for deletion phrases. Also, there are rare instances where an article might be nominated for Transwiki and the article should be deleted entirely. It is far better for the nominator to be explicit, so that it is clear what should be the course of action. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I also recall a particular user claiming that the nominator's opinion didn't count. Perhaps a rephrasing would help? What do you think of this:
 * "Under the section, describe, in accordance with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted and clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus...."
 * I've sometimes explicitly put a delete in my nominations, and sometimes I haven't; but if it were standard practice, it could make "vote counting" a little easier at a minimum. I have no objection to a change along these lines. - RedWordSmith 05:48, 19 February 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no objections either, however, I'm sure many seasoned VfD users would not notice such a change, at least for a while, and will probably maintain their habit of assuming their delete vote in implicit, and expecting it will be counted (by most admins at least) as such. If this change means that will not count nominations as delete votes unless explicitly stated I think it must be made widely known, to more than just the people who read this page or who would notice the addition of a single sentence to the guidelines and realize it's full importance. Basically, I think this is a good guideline, but still I maintain nominations should be considered delete votes in all but the most truly ambiguous circumstances. -R. fiend 05:58, 19 February 2005 (UTC)


 * A recent nomination, Votes for deletion/55 bar, was nominated by the user for transwiki. I don't think it's safe to fully assume all nominations as delete, especially when they were nominated for transwiking. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2005 (UTC)


 * I've always said that if the nominator specifically says they are not voting to delete then it should not be counted as such, but in other cases it generally should be. Besides, transwikying generally involves deletion from WP following the transwiki, so such a vote is still a delete vote, just a different sort of one. -R. fiend 06:59, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding RedWordSmith's suggestion now. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

Beautification
I've been frustrated with VfD for a long while (since I last actively contributed), and recently TimStarling, a very long-standing Wikipedian, mentioned that he "tried" to add an article to VfD the other day and found the process unfriendly. So I took my energies out on improving this template, using color to replace an excess of bold and italics. It's really just a 3-step process; hopefully this is now clear (and less intimidating). I hope it's useful! Feel free to tweak the specific text; I tried to capture ths spirit of the instructions while cutting down the text to the minimum necessary to make a point. sj 06:38, 15 April 2005 (UTC)
 * Very nice work, it looks great in firefox, but the colours of the first column don't render correctly in opera - taviso 13:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) [[Image:Opera-vfd-footer.png|thumb|right|Page as rendered in opera]]
 * Nevermind, looks like Sjorford fixed it, thanks! -- taviso 06:46, 19 April 2005 (UTC)

Vote suggestion
Per this discussion, I've made a small modification to step II, namely suggesting that the nominating party include the first "vote" (entry? outcome suggestion?  I know vote isn't quite right) below the afd2 line, so that it's clear what they are suggesting the outcome be. In the future, I'd like to revisit this to see if it's appropriate to change the text to-be-pasted so that it includes the first 'vote' immediately below the afd2 line. I know that not all nominations are implicit deletes, but the nominating editor could change that text as suggested. Just a thought to mull. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote suggestion, part deux
Kelly Martin has removed the text I added back in September without discussion or consensus. I worked to gather consensus before adding it, and I feel that her removal of the text without explanation (other than "removing completely inappropriate text") is unfortunate. In this edit, Kelly incorrectly states that I made the proposal, got two objections, then implemented anyhow. This is simply not true. As seen here, I made proposal A (which was to modify the afd2 template to automatically insert the Delete vote). There were two very well thought out objections, and working with the objectors, we came up with an alternative (to instead suggest in Template:AfD footer instructions that the nominator consider placing the first vote). I proposed it, and Android79 said "Go for it!". Once again, I'm working to gather consensus on the issue, and just putting a note in here in case you've come wondering what's happening with the text in the article. Best regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * after significant discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion I am inserting a similer suggestion. DES (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for change in template
There is a minor problem with the step 3 of the template. The template says "If you used template instead of, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination". This is not correct. You must use "PageName (2nd nomination)" if you have used 2nd and "PageName (second nomination)" if you have used second in step 1. Can the template be changed to reflect this? A user had a lot of problems with a listing at AfD because of this. I did not change it myself because of a large number of articles linked to this template.- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 10:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)