Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/January 2005

Template:TubeNavbox
I played around with this last year, but never got it working properly and has been superceded anyway. Mackensen (talk) 03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete? Mackensen was the only one that had edited it and it's unused. -- Netoholic @ 22:09, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete.
 * "10. Any article which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the article was edited only by its author." &mdash; MikeX (talk) 11:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)



Template:Whatever

 * Content when listed was:


 * Content as of 18:07, 30 Jan 2005 was (sans the  (would you look at that! A   embedded inside of a   !)):

This is an image copyright tag, which asserts that you must use the image if you are moral, but can't use if it you're not. The GFDL doesn't differentiate between who is moral enough to use our material, and there is potential for legal problems here too. Dunc|&#9786; 16:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * ... the image, and everything else in the world. I hereby declare that I will never subject Wikipedia (or any later user of my images) to any legal challenge regarding the use of my work, whether I personally consider the use of it to be ethical or not. Chamaeleon 17:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Unambiguous like Fair Use? The declaration squarely puts the image, and everything else, into the public domain, as though the work had been found on Mars. Chamaeleon 17:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's public domain? Great, stick a public domain tag on it. No need for a new tag. License tags are not the appropriate place for your opinions on copyright. --fvw *  18:15, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
 * Delete, and restore the original copyright tags for all images User:Chamaeleon has uploaded (unless a better solution is found). Image copyright notices must be unambiguous. Fredrik | talk 17:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, copyright tags should contain the licence the image is released under, not sociopolitical rants. --fvw *  17:27, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
 * What if there is no licence? An explanation is then necessary. Chamaeleon 17:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is no license, we either
 * Use it under fair use, in which case it needs a fair use tag and an assessment of whether it is fair use
 * or
 * We cannot use it because it would be a copyright violation. Your declaration that you will never sue wikipedia about it is nice, but not sufficient. You'd also have to sign away the rights of your heirs to do so, which you can't do unless you licence the image to us which you don't want to do. --fvw *  18:15, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, every image using this template was licensed in the past under a CC license or the GFDL. Whoever implements removing this template should reinstate the relevant licenses (check the image description page's history).  Recall that once something has been released under a license by the copyright holder, it can't be unreleased.  dbenbenn | talk 15:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, but he can first release it under a CC or GFDL licence, and then release it into the public domain. Those who have aquired a licence will still have that licence, but in addition they will be free to handle it as an uncopyrighted work, as will everybody else. --fvw *  17:21, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
 * It's best for mankind that this should be deleted. See also Template:Whatever-screenshot.  dbenbenn | talk 17:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, templates are not soapboxes. older &ne; wiser 18:40, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Del  &mdash;msh210 19:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia does not endorse anarcho-nihilism. Vacuum c 19:33, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. JamesMLane 04:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. &rarr;Raul654 04:49, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly named and the poorly defined text in the template is unusuable. Assuming good intentions, whatever this template was trying to accomplish is lost on me at this point.  --Sketchee 07:55, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep your rants about the morality of copyright to your user page.  &mdash;Kelly Martin 18:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * "You may not use this work to do anything unethical (such as accumulating profits)" is a non-commercial use only license, which contradicts the part of the template claiming it is PD. Confusing and meaningless, so delete. Angela.
 * Note: don't forget Template:Whatever-pinched. Is there any chance of speedying this? Dunc|&#9786; 19:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, crap. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello? 00:18, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * no view on this one but general caution: it is illegal in the US to remove copyright managment information. That is: if you modify a license template to change its license or delete the template, you have to actually add the original license (possibly with a date range to indicate which revisions are covered, if there are multiple revisions) to every using image description page. That is: once a license template has been used, it's not really practical to ever change it in any substantive way, nor to delete it unless all images using it have been deleted first. The claim that this license endangers the Wikipedia is entirely bogus: the copyright holder granted a GFDL license when uploading the image so it's at least a GFDL licensed work. Jamesday 17:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm? I'm not quite sure I understand. All the images are GFDL-licensed, so we can just replace the whatever license with a standard GFDL banner, right? If that's not allowed, we can at least download the images from wikipedia, delete them whatever-license-tag and all, and reupload them specifying the original uploader, all of which would be allowed by the GFDL. Right? --fvw *  17:58, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Template:Talkpagepolitics
''On Wikipedia, there are a lot of different political views represented. That's a good thing: it makes it a better encyclopedia. But if you want to rant about or praise ItemX, then the article or talk page for ItemX is not the best place to do it; neither rants nor gushing help neither the article nor the growth of the article. If you want to rant/gush, set up a special page like User:YOURUserNAME/ItemX rant page or User:YOURUserNAME/ItemX gush page''.

Absolutely unecessary, and used in only one place. &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr; (talk) 02:13, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)


 * Abstain for now. It's not a bad reminder I guess, but the wording is pretty strong and it hasn't been used.  Do we have a more general template reminding people to stay focused on the article?  Isn't the User namespace still provided with the intent of improving the project?  --Sketchee 07:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutralitytalk 02:30, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:FRWL actors
After dicussion it was decided to not use this template. It's currently orphaned and theres truly no use for it whatsoever. K1Bond007 05:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - K1Bond007, can you provide a link to the discussion about this? -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
 * Comment: It was between the original author and myself, mostly taking place on his and my discussion pages. K1Bond007 06:12, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Dr No actors
After discussion it was decided to not use this template. It's currently orphaned and theres truly no use for it whatsoever. K1Bond007 05:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - K1Bond007, can you provide a link to the discussion about this? -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Template:Chinese suzerain
The template below has been deleted by User:Frazzydee on January 31 2005 with a total tally of 4/1/0 (80% consensus).

Useless template. The anon who created it wrote on the template the comment that "this list is incomplete. Please help Wikipedia by expanding it." If we really did complete it, it would contain just about every country in East Asia, since at some point they have probably come under Chinese suzerainty. Like I said, a useless template. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 01:24, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 01:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 *  Keep . &mdash;Instantnood 08:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not every country in East Asia paid tributes to imperial China, and many of the countries which paid tributes no longer exist, e.g. Yüeh-Chih (Yuezhi) and Ta-Yuan. &mdash;Instantnood 08:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Disregard. First and so far only edit by this user. --Jiang 06:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. A list like this should be an article, not a template. Templates like this would be impossible to work with. Can you imagine having templates for "states that used to be British colonies", "states that used to be French colonies", "states that used to be satrapies of the Persian Empire", "states that came under the control of Germany during WW2", ad nauseam? How many templates would the article of each city, region, and country have at the bottom? 10? 20? This isn't what templates are for. -- ran (talk) 03:35, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete useless and sometimes POV to label some relationships as such. Use categories if absolutely necessary, but im leaning against even that. --Jiang 06:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It does not involve POV and in fact such relationship is usually mentioned in the history article of these states. -- 09:30, January 25, 2005, UTC
 * The fact of a tributary relationship need not be POV, but regarding it as something so noteworthy as to merit a series box is. Certainly the informational content should be included in the articles (and in most cases it already is), but I fail to see what value this template adds beyond putting a distinctly Sinocentric POV in these articles. -- Visviva 04:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Exceedingly dubious in value.  For one thing, not all "tributaries" were loyal or regular; some were tributaries at one point and not at another.  The Chinese imperial tribute system, although it certainly deserves thorough treatment in Wikipedia, was too complex to be depicted in a manner as simplistic as this.  The fact of the relationship should be included, but this template should not be used.  -- Visviva 04:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose the deletion - the box gives a picture of which countries share similar path somewhere in history. The box already links to the corresponding history articles and readers can compare among one former state to another with it easily. &mdash; Instantnood 07:59, Jan 27 2005 (UTC)
 * second vote by same user. i fail to see clear guidelines for listing or a close relationship among members of the group. it helps to use a list instead--Jiang 11:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The original vote was already crossed out, leaving only the comment.
 * I believe I have made my view clear enough. They share similar path somewhere in history, and they were the states which were under this system of international relations in East Asia. If you strongly believe that the box should be remove then please make sure a link to the list is available at each of the articles on these former states, and each of these articles belong to a category. &mdash; Instantnood 17:40, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any close relation among members of the group, only a close relation to China itself--Jiang 06:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You failed to see it but it does exist. But then it has came to a situation like.. it's not a matter of whether the relation exists, but to agree with it or not. &mdash; Instantnood, 17:07 Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to make the relationship clear, a simple sentence like, "between xxxx and xxxx this country paid tribute to the Chinese Empire" would suffice. As I've said, this template sets a bad precedent. Are you going to make other templates for former British colonies, former French colonies, former Spanish colonies, former Roman territory, former Persian territory, former Ottoman territory, former Mongol territory, and so on and so forth? -- ran (talk) 04:40, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The history pages tell the precedance of templates on former colonial empires was in fact Template:Portuguese former colonies. Suzerainty (according to its article) is a form of international relations rather than sovereignty versus colony. &mdash; Instantnood 00:25, Jan 31 2005 (UTC)

template:Enduring single-issue dispute

 * Content was: "This article is subject to an enduring dispute over a single issue. Please read this talk page before editing it."

A nonsensical semi-permanent dispute tag. &rarr;Raul654 05:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I added the second template template because it's virtually identical to the first, except uglier. It's saying almost the exact same thing, but if anybody feels that it warrants a seperate entry, [feel free to] go ahead and move it there. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 01:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (edited 03:14, 23 Jan 2005)


 * Delete. The goal is to fix the article, not load it up with ugly tags. Rhobite 05:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The dispute isn't going away any time soon: in the mean time, people ought to know what's going on, like any dispute tag. (Note: the article in question is clitoris, and the issue is whether the "vulva image" should be there.) &mdash;Ashley Y 05:55, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Please don't make templates so that you can put your own editorial comments at the top of a single page. Rhobite 06:00, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's no more an "editorial comment" than putting up the NPOV template. And of course this template can be used by other articles that may need it. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:05, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Delete, if there's an NPOV issue, stick an NPOV tag on it. Incidentally, the enduring single issue at Clitoris appears to be whether or not to have an enduring single issue tag on it. Odd, that. --fvw *  03:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vacuum c 15:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -Frazzydee|&#9997; 15:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Jirate 15:27, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 17:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Timbo ( t a l k )  17:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 198 and CookieCaper both added the notice when it was removed, I presume their votes would be 'Keep'. Vacuum c 17:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to be confrontational, but I think we should let 198 and CookieCaper vote for themselves. Timbo ( t a l k )  20:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far too vague. Use NPOV or some other more specific template, according to your own specific objection to the article content at present. Also consider entering the page on Requests for comment under the section titled Article content disputes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoever created this template: why not create a template denoting an image dispute? I don't think there is one at present. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Gay
A new template, by an IP, too. Problem is, it is highly US-centric and filled with red links to articles the IP seems to think should have been written or something. "Gay Friendly Religions" as the first link (in red), not exactly what is that relevant everywhere in the world. "Civil Right Movements" lists US links only (except ILGA) and are the "Log Cabin Republicans" a civil rights movement? And what's "Countries With Organized Gay Populations" supposed to mean? There are lots more countries with gay rights organisations, and not every gay or lesbian living in those countries is a member of some organisation. In other words, highly questionable, that thing. I'd say let's get rid of it. -- AlexR 09:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I believe with some editing it can be better. I question the idea of flat out deleting a template that can be useful for Wikipedia's entries on the gay community.  Here is my analysis of the problem you specified:


 * Gay Friendly Religions - Religion is a global matter; it is not "US-centric". Perhaps Wikipedia could use an entry detailing the religious beliefs of the gay community not just an article explaining how many religions view homosexuality.
 * Religion may be a global matter, but putting it in such a prominent position would seem inappropriate in most countries who recognize "gay" as a community. Most gay people in most places of the world have other priorites. [AR]
 * Civil Rights Movement - Actually three of the eight links are global organizations. If you can find others to add, please do.  The Log Cabin Republicans support efforts for the Republican Party to include gays in policy making.
 * Yes, well, but why have so many US-organisations anyway? The English WP is not the USA-WP. And I know what the log cabin republicans are, I just doubt they deserve such a prominent position. [AR]
 * Countries With Organized Gay Populations - If you notice the links to the countries are entitled "The History of Gays in Canada" and so on. Wikipedia could use articles detailing the events and history of Gays in specific countries.
 * The title in that case is simply inaccurate. Also, how about writing the articles first and then linking to it? It seems rather pointless to have so many red links in a box. [AR]


 * If you feel the template needs some editing, go ahead. Why delete a template with the potential of enriching Wikipedia? --Apollomelos 15:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I do not see that this template (or similar attempts) does enrich Wikipedia. That is a general problem with those boxes, see also Article series boxes policy (proposed) -- AlexR 02:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not... an advocacy organization, self-help, or support group. Consider creating or joining/starting a Gay/Lesbian cultures or studies project here on Wikipedia, and developing a template for that project? - Amgine 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Writing and organizing factual articles on a subject of widespread interest is not advocacy, self-help, or support. It's encyclopedia writing. Gazpacho 01:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Questions how are articles on gay history an "advocacy organization"? When articles on Jewish or African-American history are not?  This template is nearly identical to the template entitled Jew except gay related.  Is template Jew an "advocacy organization" too? --Apollomelos 17:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's got POV problems, and it's a series of lists awkwardly forced into infobox format. There might be a place for infoboxes on related history or organization articles, but this template doesn't look like it's going to do the job iMeowbot~Mw 00:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, it needs some editing. Wikipedia does need an infobox for the pages related to the gay community. --Apollomelos 17:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Even edited, I think that this template is doomed to have POV problems. For example, it still starts out with a long list of LGBT support organizations, and omits the groups dedicated to opposing us.  "List of . . ." articles with supporting and opposing organizations can work as separate pieces, but in the context of a shared infobox it looks (and is) censored.  It also uses this term "the gay community" which perpetuates the falsehood that we all belong to one big club.
 * When I wrote "infoboxes" I meant just that, more than one. History articles might possibly benefit from a timeline footer, and a common footer or infobox for organizations' articles might make sense, but the infobox under discussion is more of a political advertisement than informative. iMeowbot~Mw 13:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Edited. I did some fixing up.  Is it suitable now?  I feel it no longer fits the prerequisites for a candidate of deletion. --Apollomelos
 * No, it is not much better now, and therefore remains a candidate for deletion. -- AlexR 02:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This template is unnecessary and POV merely by its inclusion. Any pertinent articles can be linked from the homosexuality article. Having an entire template just to link to articles dealing with a particular form of sexual deviancy is a bit gratuitous. This gay template is not analagous to the Jew template. Gay is not a race. Nido 00:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * One might also add that there is a List of gay-related topics already, which does a similar job and much better, too. -- AlexR 02:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * comment - If you could please try to keep your personal opinions aside when making your votes. Aside from the plainly inflamitory comment labeling millions humans as deviants, your insinuation that homosexuality is a choice shows a lack of knowledge in the area which you are speaking against, when there have been many studies that show that it may be related to genetics or fetal chemical alterations at critical developmental periods. That aside, please try to make your votes with an air of objectivity, rather then just being objectionable. Arcuras 01:22, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing in my comments were personal opinion. Homosexuality is deviant by definition as it is a significant deviation from 'typical' sexual behavior and one which&mdash;despite its ubiquitous acceptance in Western media&mdash;is not commonly accepted as normal.  This is independent of my own opinions on homosexuality and the nature of homosexuality as either voluntary or innate, both of which have no relevance to this discussion.  I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm a bigot. Nido 04:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem I am having with what you said, and what you are still saying, is with the extreme negitive connotation of the word "Deviant". "Sexual deviancy" is usually reserved for such things as peadophilia or necrophilia... to apply such a label to the GLBT community causes your motives to be cast into doubt. I hartily admit that "gay" sex is not viewed as "normal", but "normal" and "typical" are both arbitrary terms placed upon by a majority, and thus are inherantly biased. Also, I didn't insinuate you were a bigot, I was insinuating you were being offencive. Homophobe/Bigot are not words I use lightly, certainly not after only first coming into contact with someone. Arcuras 05:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then the problem lies with your understanding of the word "deviant" surely? --Phil | Talk 18:08, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to get really basic with it, my problem would be with the societal construct behind the connotative meanings underlying deviant, and it's application to objects/states/groups which do not deserve nor qualify these underhandedly-applied, negitive strands of meaning. Society applies more meaning to words then their simple defintion... consider the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter. Either could equally applied, but it's the underlying meanings which give them their edge. Also, just fyi, deviant hasn't got a definition on wiktionary yet. Arcuras 23:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Arcuras is right. "Deviant" is an inherently POV word, because no matter what it means formally, in practice it invariably conjures up negative associations of people one needs to protect one's children from. It's a word that gets applied to LGBT people regularly, and we're fully entitled to be offended by it. Bearcat 19:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to deleting this template. It is very NPOV as is, especially with that flag, but that is easily changed. I propose that it be renamed to Sexual orientation and have subsections for the asexual, bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, and transexual. Making a bit of a leap from that point, the Sexual orientation template should be a subsection of a Human sexuality template. We probably need a WikiProject Sexuality or something. --Alterego 01:48, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * One already exists, though it is not well known: WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality. Arcuras 02:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Errrr, transsexualism is not a sexual orientation, thank you very much. Maybe getting some information first before one embarasses oneself with such an error might be advisable. I also recommend the List of transgender-related topics. -- AlexR 02:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Embarassing myself? Just because there is a movement doesn't mean I have to know all about it. --Alterego 19:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that you implied that transsexuality is a sexual orientation. It's more of an identity issue than anything -- for instance, a man may wish to be a woman. Whether he is attracted to men or women is not determined by this. --65.184.25.185 23:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep! There is not one single reason other than homophobia to delete this template.  Notice the statements’ of those who wish it deleted:


 * Gay related pages are an “advocacy organization” (Amgine)
 * No, Wikipedia is not a place for a POV template, and this one has no other need for existence. I also encouraged the creation of a project focusing on G/L studies which would then create a need for such a template. Do not attempt to "interpret" my statement; you are about as far off-base in doing so as it is possible to be. - User:Amgine
 * Homosexuals are deviant (Nido)


 * Even the wiki who brought it up for deletion seemed to feel very agitated when one user placed transgender with other sexual minorities in an apparent mistake. I wonder if that&#8217;s indicative of the wiki&#8217;s feelings towards sexual minorities such as gays.  Personal views towards those who are gay have no place in an academic encyclopedia.  I am astonished with the amount of homophobia on this discussion.  I half expect a book burning to soon take place on other &#8220;deviant&#8221; subjects. ScionElement
 * Yes, anyone who voices opposition against anything remotely related to homosexuality is obviously "homophobic". It doesn't sound like you're pushing an agenda or anything.  And thanks for misquoting me. Nido 06:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Violates NPOV, as well as any standards of style or good taste. This is a worse abuse of templates for POV-pushing than even Mr-Natural-Health's creative abuses of the system - David Gerard 01:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What? Recognizing gays as a group on the same level of study as others such as Christians, Jews, African Americans, etc, is a violation of NPOV? Do we need to ensure that gays are seen to be a group unworthy of recognition because they are "deviants" or something? -- Apollomelos 19:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No. We just need to ensure that people are aware that some people think gays are deviants. Also that homosexuality exists outside of the US. Also, we probably shouldn't have a gay rights image as one of the most prominant pictures on every article involving homosexuality - particularly, say, Homophobia. Beyond that, boxes shouldn't contain red links, boxes should only be used when a category system could not possibly work, and straw man arguments that accuse people who want this box deleted of being homophobic are absurd and offensive, particularly when the main advocate for deletion is one of the most outspoken supporters and editors regarding GLBT issues on Wikipedia. Snowspinner 12:49, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

--Calton 04:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote strong KEEP. It is a useful heuristic for identifying articles written from a self-consciously gay perspective in order to advance gay causes, in other words, those written from a gay POV. 5440orFight 03:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)54orFight
 * Thank you, I think your opinion on this is insightful. JRM 03:16, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
 * 5440 has only had three edits as of writing. WhisperToMe 03:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * in order to advance gay causes And there's your problem, right there. Remember NPOV?
 * User 5440orflight how come a few weeks ago before you switched your name from Noah Peters you were adding false information to link gays to the Nazi Party? And after your switch you come here and add this comment favoring gay POVs?  I suspect you have other motives than keep..... Apollomelos


 * Delete. No one has explained any useful purpose this template would serve that couldn't be better served by one or more lists or categories, along with appropriate wikilinks in articles.  Furthermore, there are problems arising from the question of what to include.  If the list of articles in the template omits some of those to which the template should apply, then the template is actively misleading readers (for example, a reader could reasonably infer that Wikipedia has no article on Lawrence v. Texas, given that it's not listed).  On the other hand, if the template includes all gay-related articles, it will be huge, and will detract from every such article.  If anyone wants to characterize my vote as homophobic, feel free, but I believe it would be anti-gay to subject all articles on gay themes to this kind of intrusive addition. JamesMLane 05:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Why would Lawrence not have the template? It dealt entirely with gay male rights. I think people here don't want to acknowledge that what they are doing by writing and editing articles to advance gay causes is essentially political activity. All of these articles-- homophobia, gay holocaust, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.-- are written from a consciously gay perspective and might as well be tagged with a huge rainbow flag. At least that would be more honest than misleading readers into thinking these articles are npov. I have tried repeatedly to change some of these articles, but have always been reverted and repeatedly branded "homophobic." I'm fed up. Let's put a big rainbow sticker on these articles to show everyone how silly the whole business of politicizing serious historical phenomena is.
 * I mentioned the example of Lawrence because I've edited that article -- for example, by this edit in which I added two assessments of the Supreme Court's decision, one pro and one con. I think the article is reasonably NPOV.  Anyway, putting aside your charge of bias, my point is that if this template were to be kept, then Lawrence v. Texas and many other articles could well be added.  The box would become so long that it would impair the usefulness of the articles to which it was applied. JamesMLane 04:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT ::: I can see where some of you are coming from. AlexR did mention a pretty good point about the catagory page already.  And others did add some helpful input on starting a GLBT project.    However anon ip 199.111.225.59 (user who left comment above) please stop vandalizing.  I'm not the only one who has asked you.  And your ref. to the Holocaust claiming that gays weren't targeted and many Nazis were "known homosexuals" defy facts.  It defies facts from both the US Government and the German Government.  If you can substantiate your claims will verified sources other than personal home pages or amazon.com conspiracy thoerists books I'd be glad to look over it.   Apollomelos

I never referenced that book on amazon, references to which you deleted, another user did that. I only changed some dubious information and put the article in line with the USHMM website, much of which has not been restored. I did say that Nazis did not target gays in the same way they targeted Jews, a statement directly from the USHMM website (compare "Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals" with "the Nazis undertook the systematic murder of every Jew in Europe")  I don't know what information the U.S. government keeps on the "gay holocaust," but this is the first I've heard of it. You must believe that the USHMM is a government insitution, which it is not. I do not know what information the German government keeps on the "gay holocaust." However, official government histories are often quite biased and untrue, existing to fill political goals, so if you plan to contribute more to serious history articles, Apollomelos, I would not trumpet the government as a definitive source. By the way, Apollomelos, you have now called me out three times in this discussion on a topic unrelated to the gay template. Noah Peters 23:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters


 * An Oddity anon ip 199.111.225.59 I found it interesting how you are against the template however you added it to a zillion pages.  Was that an effort to anger wikis whose pages you were vandalizing to come here and vote delete out of their false belief that someone who favors the template was behind it?  Another thing, on the gay Holocaust page I've been reverting contributions you have added and another user who wasn't anon, his name was Noah Peters.  I did some searching and found out he switched his name to 5440orFlight.  I considered him to be vandalzing gay related pages and now he comes here and makes a comment "*I vote strong KEEP. It is a useful heuristic for identifying articles written from a self-consciously gay perspective in order to advance gay causes, in other words, those written from a gay POV.".  Which then other wikis saw that comment and falsely belived it was a gay friendly person REALLY thinking pages should be a gay POV.  Is that an attempt to get wikis to vote delete?  One more thing, I noticed another user probably a multiple account is doing the same thing as 199.111.225.59 in adding the template to many pages today the name is 4640orFlight. Apollomelos

I think the important thing about this template is that it flags a considerable, and considerably underrepresented or misrepresented, social group. It could help readers find connections that they would otherwise miss. For instance, there may be a gay weltanschaung in architecture. Does every phallic tower have to be received, in image if not in reality, but a reflecting pond? How often are two towers built side by side, and with no reflecting pools at the bottom? How often are two pools nestled together, and not lorded over by concrete phal-syms? Maybe the same kind of sensibility gets represented in music, in paintings, etc., and nobody ever notices it. Then, as with any social organization, some attention might be directed toward forces that reinforce and forces that fight it. &#37329; (Kim) 08:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Note To Whoever As Final Say When counting the votes be sure to check the users.  I've noticed many of these users coming here to vote delete are new.  Some of them only appeared and came here to vote delete never to contribute again.  It seems to me that many are sockpuppets of those with multiple accounts in an effort to make multiple votes. 207.224.215.134

Votes to keep

 * 1) Keep. --Apollomelos 15:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  Weak Keep - It might be useful for use on some of the GLBT related articles, much like the Same-Sex Marriage template - however, it needs to be heavily edited for both content, pov issues, naming conventions, Americentrism... and surely we can come up with a less garish picture - that one just clashes horribly Arcuras 01:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) Upon pondering it for a while, changing from week to keep. Arcuras 02:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep.-gadfium 05:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC), but rename to "Gay rights" or similar. Calling it just "Gay" is an invitation to vandals to plaster it over unrelated articles they believe need improvement.-gadfium 22:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep, I'm not a specialist in that topic but I see nothing wrong with the template. Grue 06:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep, ditto. Could actually be expanded a little (Maybe Ancient Greece? Maybe the Fa'afafine (sp?) of the Pacific Islands? Maybe add Nazi Germany to the Perscution section?), but certainly this should be kept. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 06:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep. Everything gay gets listed for deletion. Hyacinth 03:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep - though I would, myself use seperate templates such as History of Homosexuality on most articles. There is no legitimate reason for this deletion, though users should feel free to edit it. --Oldak Quill 12:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) I vote strong KEEP. It is a useful heuristic for identifying articles written from a self-consciously gay perspective in order to advance gay causes, in other words, those written from a gay POV. [See discussion above.] 5440orFight 03:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)54orFight
 * 9) Strong Keep.  Move arguments about current and potential CONTENT to the template's talk page, limit use until the talk page discussion reaches some consensus.  The idea of the template is sound.  Presumably, individual articles should discuss both sides of the issue, so such "advocacy"/"homophobic" issues are to be dealt with on a broad spectrum of pages.  Depending on the discussion, a footer might be better but again that should be left to the talk page.  I strongly support templates linking between main articles in any culture or subculture&mdash;including cultural groups of race, sexual orientation, nationality and any other culture that we can agree exists.  There are definite cohesion problems navigating naturally through such collectives and the category/list system doesn't seem to be doing it.  Templates seem quite effective when used unobtrusively and carefully. (That this template doesn't do yet, but will.)  --Sketchee 07:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Keep. After it's kept, merge [with Template:LGBT sidebar] if that's the consensus of the community of editors around the template. (Or if someone does it boldly and well and it isn't reverted, like any item on Wikipedia.) Relevance and potential are obvious, and now the awareness of and critical mass around the item are clear. Samaritan 04:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Proton pump inhibitors aren't a race either, but we still have an infobox for them. That said, I'm not a fan of this one. Delete &mdash;MikeX (talk) 16:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) Update 11:33, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC): Better now, still needs a bit of work Keep

Votes to delete

 * 1) Delete. - Amgine 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete. iMeowbot~Mw 00:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete. Nido 00:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete. Ow. My eyes. Snowspinner 01:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete. - David Gerard 01:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete. Won't bother repeating the above sentiments. ugen 64 04:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Delete, hopelessly POV. - Vague | Rant 12:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Delete. What ugen64 said. Proteus (Talk) 12:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Deeeeelete. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 02:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Delete. I was avoiding voting here, but given then way it has already been abused, I realize it's just a nightmare waiting to happen. &rarr;Raul654 03:04, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Delete. Agree with Raul654. Rhobite 04:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Delete, trolling. silsor 04:24, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Delete CryptoDerk 04:27, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Delete.  No one has explained any useful purpose this template would serve that couldn't be better served by one or more lists or categories, along with appropriate wikilinks in articles.  Furthermore, there are problems arising from the question of what to include.  If the list of articles in the template omits some of those to which the template should apply, then the template is actively misleading readers (for example, a reader could reasonably infer that Wikipedia has no article on Lawrence v. Texas, given that it's not listed).  On the other hand, if the template includes all gay-related articles, it will be huge, and will detract from every such article.  If anyone wants to characterize my vote as homophobic, feel free, but I believe it would be anti-gay to subject all articles on gay themes to this kind of intrusive addition. [See discussion above.] JamesMLane 05:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Delete. If kept, this template is likely to become the target of edit wars, and as it currently stands is not NPOV.  You're not even going to get agreement as to what pages should (or should not) be marked with it.  Getting rid of it avoids a whole bunch of problems best avoided.  &mdash;Kelly Martin 19:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Delete: edit-war magnet, POV to the max --Phil | Talk 18:08, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Delete DJ Clayworth 18:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Delete. Evil Monkey → Talk 03:17, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Delete highly US-centric and ugly. What is gay leadership anyway? Have I missed the election? Ich bin Warm - Kronecker Delta 15:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Delete POV. -- Jacottier 17:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Delete. Should be a category.  Johntex 23:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Delete There are other, better, ways to present this list of resources and links within the context of Wikipedia. For example, an article on "homophopia" should describe what homophopia is, not serve as a web page for resources on homosexuality.

Votes to revise

 * 1) Rename and KEEP. I am strongly opposed to deleting this template. It is very NPOV as is, especially with that flag, but that is easily changed. I propose that it be renamed to Sexual orientation and have subsections for the asexual, bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, and transexual. Making a bit of a leap from that point, the Sexual orientation template should be a subsection of a Human sexuality template.  We probably need a WikiProject Sexuality or something. [See discussion, moved above.] --Alterego 01:48, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep but Edit On principle I think we should avoid deleting other people's work unless absolutely necessary. On the other hand flying the gay flag seems like a bit of advocacy, regardless of what other groups may have done. And I am in favor of including the "flat Earthers" and putting in a line about the "Behavior modification" sites. We will never sink them but they will surely sink themselves. And I think it will be more honest that way. Oh yes, with that flag there it really is not the most esthetic thing I've ever seen in my life. Let's be a little soft, no? And thank you for asking my opinion! Haiduc 02:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep but Edit -- actually, Keep but rebuild from ground up.' It is incredibly Americocentric -- you wouldn't know there were any gay people anywhere else in the world. It generalizes gay male culture to all sectors of queer identity, among other ways by using "gay" where "queer" is meant (regardless of whether or not you like the word "queer," it sure as hell isn't just the gay community or gay leadership or what have you). A template of this sort would be nice; this isn't it. - Montr&eacute;alais 03:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Convert to footer this thing will get in the way of images--Jiang 03:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete. Compare Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar with the original revision of Template:Gay and think carefully about what the purpose of this template could have been. Here's a hint: it starts with "T" and keeps on rolling. A topic box like this may have merit, and I encourage people to undertake an honest attempt. This definitely isn't one. JRM 02:58, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete and start again. --fvw *  03:06, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
 * 7) Delete, and start again. The potential is there, but this single-person-created, unorganized advocacy list ain't it. Make a project out of it and build it up from scratch. Get some consensus for the proper categories and topics, not just stuff one person threw against the wall to see if it would stick. --Calton 04:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep &#37329; (Kim) 08:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) I agree with Jiang (? see above). It is so large and flashy in its current form that it would detract from any serious article that it might appear in. However, if it could be made less obtrusive it might serve a useful purpose. It would need to be balanced by a representative list of anti-Gay organizations. &#37329; (Kim) 08:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Keep and monitor - I can't see the problem with the template as it stands now. It is not now "hopelessly POV", but almost respectable. A new vote should be made on this for two reasons 1) it has changed considerably and users may change their opinions in light of this 2) one-off homophobic poster will most likely not return unless they are particularly determined. --Mark Lewis 18:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) It's true that virtually anything gay-related comes up for deletion. It's true that there has never been a legitimate reason to delete any of it beyond pure and simple homophobia. It's also true that this particular template, as currently written, is very poorly organized. For instance, there's a hell of a lot of history between "Ancient Japan" and "Holocaust", and almost all of the "gay rights" groups listed directly on the template are US-specific. The idea is legitimate, but this isn't the right result. Keep, but revise significantly. Bearcat 19:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) *Update: I now note that the Sexuality project that Arcuras noted above already has an LGBT template, which isn't complete, either, but strikes me as a much more solid baseline than this one. I'm thus adding a conditional vote to merge with Template:LGBT sidebar if possible, but if that can't be done or they can be shown to serve distinct purposes, then my original "keep, but revise" vote stands. Bearcat 19:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:1, Template:2, Template:3, Template:4, Template:5, Template:6
These are no longer necessary in MediaWiki 1.4, since it doesn't interpret the inside  as a template. Goplat 07:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- Patrick 10:24, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all --Evice 00:11, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I went to delete these, and a zillion things use them (well, I only checked 1, 2, and 6, but even 6 has a good number, so I'm sure the rest must too). So, waiting for them to be depopulated. Noel (talk) 17:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Those are false-positives. Those pages/templates haven't been edited since the MediaWiki upgrade, so there is a leftover "link" to these templates. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. I wonder if doing a cache flush (with "&action=purge") will update the links table. I wonder if any pages use these templates for other reasons, or are we sure that all the link entries are these false-positives? Noel (talk) 16:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you have to do a "null-edit" to each article (open it, then save without making changes) to refresh the links. I used to have a bot that could do that... :) -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
 * Right, that bug (and all the related ones - categories have a similar set) is really a PITA. The right fix is that extra links table, though, so until someone tackles adding that we'll have to live with the consequences. I did look idly through part of the lists of linked articles (ignoring templates), and all the handful I found using any of these templates were the results of errors, so I'd guess it is safe to go ahead and delete them. Certainly, anything that is using them for real will blow up, because the TfD notice will screw up the syntax. So, I'd say, let's just be lazy and take the easiest way of all out - just wait a while and see if anyone reports any errors, and if not, zap. There's no urgency to get rid of them, I don't think. Noel (talk) 20:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Former British colonies
This is a misuse of templates. We already have too many boxes and the last thing we would want is to have a box reflecting every territorial change of a particular country. This could bring us twenties and thirties of these stupid pastel colored boxes. (Think:we already have Template:Commonwealth_of_Nations) Replace with Category:Former British colonies, which already exists within this template. --Jiang 07:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Delete. Not to mention the facts that (1) it could do with some spellchecking ("Posessions"?); and (2) it only includes about 1/3 of the places that should be on the list (only two places listed in Africa? What about Gold Coast, Lagos, Northern Nigeria, Southern Nigeria, Southern Cameroons, Kenya, Uganda, Zanzibar, Tanganyika, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, Basutoland, Sierra Leone, Niger Coast, Oil Rivers, Gambia, Southern Rhodesia, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Cape Colony, Natal, South West Africa, Northern Rhodesia, Somaliland, and Nyasaland? Um... did I miss any?). Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 08:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 *  Keep  &mdash; Everybody can help enriching the list instead of requesting for deletion. There are a handful of such templates on other colonies (of the Netherlands, of Portugal, for instance). If this template is to be deleted we have to seriously think about the treatment to other similar templates. &mdash; Instantnood 11:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3rd edit by this user, the other two were also in support of crap created by the same anon. Please take a look at Categories, lists, and series boxes. This is what categories are for. I will nominate the other templates for deletion soon. Just because there's already crap doesnt mean we should allow more crap to exist...and this was all created by the same anon. --Jiang 22:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - the clutter added is not offset by the information content. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that this list only adds extra clutter to usually very full country pages. And it is especially redundant since any good article on any of these countires should mention it was a British colony.  Also, presumably, the purpose of the links is to provide related articles I would be interested in (since I am interested in the one I am now reading), but just because I am reading about the country of Singapore does not mean I am interested in Northern Rhodesia.  What we probably should do, though, is place this on each of the pages devoted specifically to the colonial era of that country (for instance on the Thirteen Colonies page).  That way it is relevant and applicable to the readers of its articles.--Dmcdevit 22:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That leads to a further problem, though... Would someone reading about a colony in the 17th and 18th centuries want to read about, say Tanganyika, a protectorate from 1918? Or would someone reading about Tonga find it worth reading about Darien, a (technically pre-"British" Scottish) colony which failed before Tonga was even discovered by Europeans?
 * Theoretically (but highly impractically), each colony might need a list of other contemporaneous colonies. How that could be done though is beyond me. I suspect it wouldn't be via templates, though. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 23:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnecessary clutter. - SimonP
 * Delete, use categories. Neutralitytalk 05:42, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Treat this like the bad template for countries once under Chinese suzerainty. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 01:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The category, however, is a marvelous idea and should be kept. -- Itai 01:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose the deletion. This box gives readers a clear picture of which countries share a similar path somewhere in history, with the countries that she/he is reading. A category is less instantaneous. However, as for some of the former colonies the former names are linked to, for those using the same names in present day, the History of NAME (or the colonial era article if there is one) should be linked instead. &mdash; Instantnood, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * second vote by same user.--Jiang 11:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The original vote was already crossed out, leaving only the comment. &mdash; Instantnood 17:43, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see a close relation among members of the group. To imply any close relation in some cases would be extremely misleading --Jiang 06:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Their relation is in the way that they share similar path somewhere in history. It is not a matter of the relation exist, but to agree with it or not. &mdash; Instantnood, 17:04 Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * They do? The similarity is tenuous at best. For example, the Thirteen Colonies were at the beginning of the British Empire, rebelled due to exploitative taxes and became independent after a war with the British Army. Tonga voluntarily became a British protectorate in 1900 while maintaining an internal monarchy, regaining full independence peacefully - with monarchy retained - in 1970, and remains within the Commonwealth. Sound like the metaphorical calcium carbonate and solidified dairy product to me. You might as well group Australia and Iraq together. Oh, right - you are. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 22:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the only comment so-far in this string of discussion showing the connections between the countries listed are not strong enough, which I agree to certain extent, tho I do not agree it does justify a removal. It is nonetheless much more convincing and helpful in a discussion than Jiang's comment (above). &mdash; Instantnood 00:21, Jan 31 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tetragrammaton

 * Note - This page depicts the tetragrammaton.  According to the Jewish tradition, if you print this page the copy should be treated as any other sacred text since it contains the name of God.

Anyone who cares will already know; to everyone else it is meaningless clutter. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 19:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. violet/riga (t) 21:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Charles. Timbo ( t a l k )  01:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If an article is being printed out for an orthodox Jewish friend or relative, the printer may wish to comply with these traditions out of respect. Thys, not everyone who cares will already know. On top of which is the fact that it is an interesting piece of trivia. If you find it too cluttersome at the top of articles - place it at the bottom of the article or on the talk page. --Oldak Quill 12:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone has an orthodox Jewish grandparent they might well know this already, just as they might know not to serve that grandparent bacon for breakfast. (And if we're going to be sensitive to the needs of hypothetical grandparents, let us suppose that someone has a strict Christian fundamentalist grandparent. Shall every article that takes the point of view that evolution is a reality then contain a warning to avoid offending that grandparent's religious sensibilities? I could come up with many more examples.) As for "interesting trivia": link the Tetragrammaton where it appears, and mention the fact in the appropriate article. Should every article containing the word the have a template explaining interesting trivia about that word? i.e. that it's one of the most common words in English, that it contains two of the most common letters in English, and so forth. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 14:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * too much 'what if'. I could come up with any number of templates with such reasoning. You won't be able to find the article text between them. dab (&#5839;) 17:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I did not know and therefore it was not meaningless. If this reason for deletion holds water, it could be applied to any text, template or article arbitrarily. The template relates directly to the subject matter and expresses cultural consideration. The "reasoning" here also attempts to speak for two groups of people, "those who already know" (i.e., Jews) and everyone else. In this sense the reasoning could be viewed as biased.Zosodada 23:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, should we then add a header or footer that is sensitive to revisionist historians on the Holocaust article warning that it might be offensive to them as it doesn't hold their position that the Holocaust never happened? The template is vague anyway, where exactly did it teach you?! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu, I can't tell if your question is meant to be rhetorical, but it is irrelevant by way of poor analogy: "revisionist historianism" is not a religion. This template seems to provide information (which I assume is true -- perhaps it isn't and therefore SHOULD be deleted) that seems to provide useful information on a culturally sensitive issue. If it is misinformation, it should go. If it represents a liturgical "spoiler alert" it should stay. Zosodada 04:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * no need to drag out the holocaust. The argument is still fallacious. If you want to know about the tetragrammaton, read, you know, Tetragrammaton. Really, if this template survives the vote, I will feel compelled to start using Template:blue warning. dab (&#5839;) 18:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Explain again how the reasoning is biased? Because it seems like simple logic: If somebody does not know that pages containing the tetragrammaton are supposed to be treated as sacred texts, then they are certainly not going to care about how those pages are handled. If somebody cares about how texts containing the tetragrammaton are handled, then they will know the rules for handling them. For those who say this is "interesting information" and thus should not be removed from the article, well, we do have hyperlinks to connect relevant information; there is no need to cram every fact about every word onto every page containing that word. (Though I note that those who created and are advocating the use of this template have yet to explain in the article tetragrammaton exactly how such texts ought to be handled. . .)&mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 23:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Superfluous. george 23:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not our job to inform people of the rules of their religion. Not unless they're reading the The rules of my religion article anyway. --fvw *  23:51, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't have an opinion regarding its deletion, but if the template is kept then it should be straightforward to write some CSS (in a DIV tag) which means the message is visible only when the page is printed, and invisible when viewed on screen. -- John Fader 00:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, we don't teach people the rules of their religion, and we don't instruct others to treat it as the word of God (though it may be). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is appropriate to mention in the main article, but not on others.-gadfium 02:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, If people think some text does or does not belong in a particular article they are free to edit the article. It's not a reason to delete a template. --agr 05:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * by this reasoning, why do we vote about any templates at all?


 * Delete: Clutter. Information belongs in Tetragrammaton article body. Also note that it's pointless: The tetragrammaton will jump to the eye of those concerned much more than another little paragraph of text stashed away somewhere. dab (&#5839;) 17:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Besides being clutter, the wording is rather bizarre - "if you print this page the copy should be treated as any other sacred text"? Nightwatch 01:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP needs to respect and embrace a multitude of cultures, beliefs and religions. If this is important to ortodox Jews, why not to keep? --Zappaz 04:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of cultures that we cannot embrace or respect without giving up essential WP values. Despite the personal respect that i have for the concern this template attempts to accommodate, it demands we give an unacceptable status to one PoV. --Jerzy(t) 02:20, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Delete. Charles's reasoning is sound. Jayjg |  (Talk)  05:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Place the template at the bottom of the articles it is used on, but keep the template. BlankVerse 09:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Outrageous. Let's warn people that they can end up in hell if they read our articles on fuck and Black Sabbath too. &#9999; Sverdrup 22:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is, I think, an honest but slightly misguided attempt at cultural sensitivity. While the idea of a sort of "liturgical spoiler warning" entertains me, that's not how this functions. As far as I know, there is no widespread rule against seeing the Tetragrammaton on a page, and these articles as they stand seem unlikely to cause someone to inadvertently read the name aloud. -Aranel ("<font color="#ba0000"> Sarah ") 00:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Del. Inherantly can serve no purpose that is consistent with NPoV: can't be fixed. --Jerzy(t) 02:20, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Delete - everybody else said why. --mav 05:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 00:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Bush-stub
Unused and unlikely to be of much use. (Note that I'm also listing Category:Bush-related stubs at WP:CFD.)  &mdash;msh210 20:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of course, it could be that some day the botany folks will start creating many bush stubs, but that's an entirely different issue altogether. -- Itai 02:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete before I have the urge to add this to Pubic hair. &mdash; MikeX (talk) 02:42, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because of probability that it will be vandalized to "This Bush-related article is a shrub." Snowspinner 02:57, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. &rarr;Raul654 03:14, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless -- AlexR 03:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Evil Monkey &rarr; Talk 03:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hell - I thought when I saw the heading at the top of this page that it was a botany related stub. Delete, delete delete (BTW, I have it on good authority from Florida that the vote so far is 7 for keep and 2 for Delete ;)  Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 05:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh well I was confused by the voting process. Can I change my vote ;-) . Evil Monkey &rarr; Talk 06:30, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename both the category and the template as "GWB-related" &mdash; Instantnood 08:55, Jan 27 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. 207.115.73.50 17:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) (logged-out Wikipedian casting provisional ballot)
 * Delete. – flamuraiTM 18:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important political figure.  -- R yan!  |  Talk  18:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * ...in which case we need a Washington-stub, Nixon-stub, Lincoln-stub, RooseveltFD-stub, Kennedy-stub, Truman-stub, Reagan-stub, Clinton-stub, Carter-stub, Eisenhower-stub... plus of course a Blair-stub, Thatcher-stub, Heath-stub, Wilson-stub (make that HWilson-stub so that we can have a WWilson-stub), Mao-stub, Stalin-stub, Hitler-stub, Lenin-stub, deGaulle-stub, Franco-stub, Mussolini-stub, Gorbachev-stub, Mandela-stub... need I go on? A more important point, though, is - how many Bush-stubs are there? The number of uses of a stub category should be the main determinant of its usefulness. At present the category has six articles in it, including the template itself, the wikipedia template pages, one user page and precisely zero articles. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 22:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't bear to see that gormless face looking up at me if there's something I can do about it. --Paul 01:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Put it with politician-stub or something more useful.--Sketchee 08:01, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No articles use this template. -- llywrch 00:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too specific. --Bookandcoffee 10:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -Frazzydee|&#9997; 14:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The stub template is fine. Hoekenheef 14:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too specific.  &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 01:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too specific. What's next, a Tony Blair stub? ...Or has that already been created? --Evice 00:09, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikisource generic
Functional duplicate of Template:Wikisourcepar. See Sister projects for a description of the standard templates used to link to these sources. -- Netoholic @ 23:19, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * Delete. No longer necessary, although I must protest Netoholic's referral to the so called "standard" templates when they are being contested. -- Itai 00:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikiversity
(and Template:Wikiversitycourse)

Cleaning up links to sister projects. These are redundant with Template:Wikibookspar usage (which can point to specific Wikibooks sections). -- Netoholic @ 05:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Template:Economics
<div class="noprint" style="clear: right; border: solid #aaa 1px; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 90%; background: #f9f9f9; width: 250px; padding: 4px; spacing: 0px; text-align: left; float: right;"> Wikibooks Economics has a section about: Wikibooks:Economics:

Cleaning up links to sister projects. This is currently unused and redundant with Template:Wikibookspar usage (which can point to specific Wikibooks sections). -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Template:Bks
Ditto. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Template:Bkst
Ditto. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Template:Bookshelf
PENDING DELETION DUE TO BLOCK-COMPRESSED REVISIONS

Ditto. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Template:Cookbookdif
Ditto. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Template:Cookbookpar2
Ditto. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Delete all &mdash; MikeX (talk) 11:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all starting from and ending here. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 14:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:WikiquoteAbout
Cleaning up links to sister projects. This is redundant with standard Template:Wikiquote (which states "by or about"). -- Netoholic @ 05:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Note: Template:Wikiquote now reads "Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: X" - a somewhat more open phrasing. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)


 * Good point about reducing many to one, but you would have to make sure that articles with removed themplated got the replacement one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Already done. Most of these badly-planned templates only make it onto a few articles, so it's easy to clear them. -- Netoholic @ 10:31, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the Template:Wikiquote is also listed for deletion... Halibutt 11:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is the related Template:Sisterproject template that is for deletion. The author of it keeps screwing up the good templates by adding it to them. -- Netoholic @ 15:59, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * I vote Keep. I think it looks bad to say "a collection of quotes by or about stupidity", because it's nonsensical to speak of quotes by stupidity. I think it looks more professional to specify that they are quotes about stupidity. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:04, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why this was in use on exactly one article before I TFD'd it? No, we need fewer one-off templates for this usage, not more. -- Netoholic @ 15:59, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I vote abstain. "Related to" is definitely better than "by or about". As to whether a single "related to" box is preferable to separate "by" and "about" boxes, I could live with either, and I don't have a strong preference either way. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:04, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * When I created this template, it was because I noticed at the bottom of Sarajevo, which was a featured article, that "Wikiquote has a collection of quotes by or about Sarajevo". Noticing that there could be no quotes by Sarajevo, I made the template, which stated that "Wikiquote has a collection of quotes about Sarajevo". The fact that it is not used in all articles where it should be, means that it should be used, not that it should be deleted. I, of course, vote keep . Maybe it could be deleted, if Template:Wikiquote would be changed to cover for both possibilities (for example "Wikiquote has a collection of quotes related to X"). I'd also like to thank to user who listed this template for deletion for informing me, on my talk page, about it; otherwise, I would completely miss the deletion. It is something which I believe should be standard practice when deleting articles created by regular users. Nikola 17:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It is so much better to find a common turn of phrase to address these problems, rather than extra templates to cover specific grammar forms. I have done as you suggested and changed it to read "Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: X".  Please reconsider your vote. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't vote to delete my baby :) So, I change my vote to neutral Nikola 20:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL. She will be remembered. :) -- Netoholic @ 21:09, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Template:Content dispute
This should've been deleted alongside with Template:Enduring single-issue dispute; whatever, it was added late anyways. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 20:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * See here and here for related polls/tfd's. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 22:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete (don't count implicit vote from nomination) -Frazzydee|&#9997; 20:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vacuum c 20:51, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant -- Netoholic @ 22:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * How? Vacuum c 18:44, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Netoholic @ 19:37, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * I meant, 'redundant with what?' Vacuum c 01:55, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redundant with template:Enduring single-issue dispute, they're practically the same. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 06:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What tag would one use if one wanted to tag a content dispute, then? Vacuum c 02:34, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; MikeX (talk) 19:53, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's almost exactly the same as the deleted Template:Enduring single-issue dispute. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &rarr;Raul654 02:36, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Book reference2, Template:Book reference extra

 * (both templates are identical)
 * (both templates are identical)

Duplicates of Template:Book reference, not needed now that templates can be used more than 5 times. Goplat 03:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, of course. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; MikeX (talk) 05:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -Frazzydee|&#9997; 01:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:SectNPOV-patch

 * [[Image:Stop hand.png|20px|Stop!]] The neutrality of this section was previously disputed. It has been patched with some qualifying statements (also known as "weasel terms"). A permanent revision has not been undertaken.  Please see its talk page. 

Younger brother of the now-deleted Template:NPOV-patch. Comments here apply, even more so as a section is a lot faster to rewrite. &mdash; MikeX (talk) 05:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete BlankVerse 12:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, forkish. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 06:58, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:PMID
I created this to facilitate links to Medline in scientific references. Now it seems the Wiki automatically recognises this: (no formatting used here!) The template has become redundant and will need to be removed from many pages. JFW | T@lk  23:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll help to remove it so that we can delete this. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 06:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've removed the template on all the remaining main namespace articles leaving only the PMID references. Petersam 09:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is this speedy-able now? – flamurai (t) 10:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)