Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Not deleted/February 2005

For an index of all TfD archives, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Template:Actor-stub

Just seeking input on another stub creation (created yesterday with limited usage). Is there a necessity to seperate all the different professions under Template:bio-stub? It's not my creation, but wanted to field some comments... Cburnett 22:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The reason that this has limited usage is that it was just created (not by me). I thought it was a good idea and started filling it up by searching on Google for articles displaying the people stub text and the word "actor" and got 154 hits (the template text alone shows up on 951 pages—this is a substantial sub-group). Category:People stubs is enormously bloated at the moment. The point of stub categories is to get them small enough that someone with an interest in that particular subject can go through looking for articles to fix. Category:People stubs is far to big for that top happen.

(I guess I'll have to wait another week before filling up the category, though. Can we start the discussion on the template talk page next time?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I started talk there to. But since only a small number have editted with the category it's of limited knowledge that it exists. Unless someone was watching Special:Recentchanges (or had an actor on their watchlist that was changed--like me) they'd never know it was there. I hate to use WP:TFD this way (to solicit input) but if there was a consensus not to continue with it then I thought it'd be best to stop sooner rather than later. I do find your rationale compelling, but I'd like to leave this here to get more input. Cburnett 22:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since I created it, I won't vote, but I will explain my reason for creating it. There is Template:Tv-bio-stub, which people were putting television actors into. The problem is that most actors don't just do television, so putting them in this category is too specific. There are also Template:Writer-stub, Template:Musician-stub, Template:Artist-stub, Template:Composer-stub, so it seems appropriate to have a stub category for actors as well. I understand your reasoning, but it seems to be that if this were to be deleted, every other sub-stub of bio-stub should be deleted as well. – flamurai^TM 22:55, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. BTW:The place for discussions on stubs is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting and the talk pages for the Wikiproject. BlankVerse 08:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the link. Cburnett 22:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep — MikeX (talk) 09:08, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Many actors do not fit only into the film, tv or movies categories. BTW, where is there a list of stub templates? Quill 23:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless there's any objections, this can be deleted any time. Cburnett 22:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is this particular comment (above) supposed to be about? --Phil | Talk 11:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I meant this TFD entry can be deleted any time unless there are any objects. So far, there's none. Cburnett 22:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One last Keep. I draw the line at {{accountant-stub}}, however. -- Itai 23:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Make that two last Keeps... and also a suggestion of adding an image of the two classical happy and sad masks (whose names elude me) Grutness|^hello? 06:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was actually digging around for an image like that, but I couldn't find anything PD. (p.s. It's comedy and tragedy.) – flamurai^TM 07:41, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Major professions (ones were there are a lot of articles) should be allowed. Keep. --YUL89YYZ 15:41, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it's fairly useful, as has already been established here.Ganymead 01:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Phil | Talk 11:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Zoicon5 19:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sisterproject

Created as a sort of "meta-template", a bad process. I agree on standardization, and simplifying the sister project links, but this meta-template will only serve to defeat that goal. Complexity and m:Instruction creep are insidious (see Wikipedia:Stub categories). There is (some) drain on the database when calling a meta-template since there must be an extra read and more computation. Its probably neglible, but as these templates are used on more and more pages, it adds up and is avoidable. Also, whenever this meta-template is changed every page using one of the child templates will be purged from the cache and have to be re-read. This is another avoidable drain. -- Netoholic @ 15:53, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

[Note: as a "meta-template", this one took me an hour to find this TfD since it appeared that another template was the nominated one. The following links ensure that text-searches looking for the templates that call it will find this section: Template:Economics Template:Wikibookspar Template:Commons Template:Pic Template:Wiktionarypar Template:Wikispecies Template:Commonscat Template:Wikinews Template:Wikisourcecat] --Jerzy(t) 03:03, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

[This was probably to no end, due to Netoholoic's aggressive reversions in service of their evidence-free opinion that the sky is falling. --Jerzy(t) 04:28, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)]

Important note: Apparently, keeping this template from being deleted is not enough to get it to be used. If you wish it to be used, vote at Template talk:Sisterproject#Survey as well. — Itai (f&t) 21:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep until some comment from a developer that this is causing meaningful strain exists. Snowspinner 19:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are at present 13 sister project templates (with more on the way), and keeping them consistent without using a template is impossible. (Also, this is a lot like Template:MetaPicstub, and needn't be changed that often.) -- Itai 01:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Your statement seems to imply a different course of action. We should carefully consider which sister project templates to keep around. If we limit the number of those templates, keeping them consistent is not a problem. Look at MetaPicstub - because of its existence, we are now forced to deal with dozens and dozens of unnecessary stub types, with no end in sight. -- Netoholic @ 03:51, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
    • Stub-sorting seems to work just fine. By the way, regarding caching issues: we are all clear on the fact that making changes manually to all templates would destroy the server cache of as many pages as modifying this one template? Of course, using a single template would make it easier to destroy the server cache of many pages, but that is one kind of vandalism I have not yet run across. -- Itai 09:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cburnett 22:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Can anyone outline exactly how much of a burden this is? If we're talking an extra DB query on top of 100 queries for a page then it's not worth fretting over. Cburnett 01:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree with Netoholic's arguments. I have by the way removed the {{tfd}} tag to keep the deletion box from confusingly appearing on all pages with a sister project link that uses this. Fredrik | talk 23:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this process legitimate without the tag? I've added a note above that solves the problem without requiring the removal of the tag, and i will put the tag back. --Jerzy(t) 03:03, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
    • Aha! Netholic already put it back, which is why i didn't have to dissect a second history to get here. --Jerzy(t) 03:18, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the message shows up next to the sister project link on all pages that use {{wikibooks}}, {{wiktionary}} etc. This is confusing. Fredrik | talk 13:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Itai, rather than waiting for this to end, keeps adding it back into the sister project templates, creating this problem. If only he had a little patience, since there is no immediate urgency. -- Netoholic @ 15:53, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
        • Until this vote is decided, we have two alternatives: using the meta-template, and not using it. In the former case, the tfd tag is harmful. In the latter, the tfd tag serves no purpose since no one will see it. If you "won" your revert war with Itai, sure, the tag could be kept. But right now it keeps changing back and forth, and therefore the most practical solution is to hide the tfd tag. He may be creating a problem, but you are taking the wrong approach to solving it. Fredrik | talk 17:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The template features were intentionally designed to support this kind of nesting, so the DB load issue is unlikely to be real. And this technique is a good step toward democratizing the ability to write usable templates without getting a PhD in this box-building language (that i for one gave up on once most of a year ago, and is still quirky enough to quickly scare me off earlier this month). --Jerzy(t) 04:28, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Keep It is a very very useful template. Squash 09:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. There are currently 8 sister projects to which templates of this type might refer and it is very useful to have a standard format. Contrary to what has been said earlier (both here and in various other places) it is not "bad practice" to transclude templates within other templates: the system does indeed provide for this implicitly. Having said that, there has been a tendency for these templates to proliferate and spawn too many subtle and IMNSHO unnecessary variations. I have started a discussion here about rationalising the situation. --Phil | Talk 11:17, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I use it often enough. --JuntungWu 13:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes... since it's creation just one day ago? -- Netoholic @ 15:53, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
    • I actually use "Template:Commons" a lot. --JuntungWu 08:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:08, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
• Keep. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:12, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• After a further clarification, as long as Template:Wikiquote remains usable, I have no particular opinion about the formatting of the template. --ABQCat 21:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with ABQCat. I finally figured out what the vote is actually about. No particular preference either. --JuntungWu 08:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There appears to have been a slight confusion. This is not about whether, for instance, Template:Wikiquote should be kept. This is about the template's formatting - whether it should use Template:Sisterproject or not. (For the difference between the two format, see [1] - to the right is the template with {{sisterproject}}, to the left without it.) This also applies to many other templates, a list of which can be found at Template talk:Sisterproject. The {{sisterproject}} template really should not have been listed on WP:TFD, but one has to make do. -- Itai 21:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I suspect a lot of votes above are under the same impression. Itai - will you PLEASE stop re-adding template:sisterproject to the templates until this and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sister projects is concluded? This is exactly the confusion we need to avoid. Careful consideration of a major change is needed. -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
      • No can do, mate. The "no-removing" rule is there for a reason. Besides, we can't have two discussions simultaneously - one here and one at a talk page. What if one decides to keep the template and the other to delete it? -- Itai 22:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually I was indeed under the impression that Template:Wikiquote, Template:Commons, etc., were up for deletion, which was how it appeared, since every page that used those templates (must have been thousands) had a notice saying that it was up for deletion. --JuntungWu 08:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's removed, I'm going to subject Template:Message_box to TfD as well. (/sarcasm) --Me at work 21:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been asked to expand on this. I originally did but it seemed like a flame so I cut back. The reasoning is rather simple, if you want to fix how they all look (suppose, you decide on making them all centered or add a little line on the right so that instead of just being a sidebox, it's in the set of 'see also' or 'external links' as normal text as well. The idea there is purely for better possibility of 'print formatting'. The example may be poor, but the meaning of "One change to rule them all" is nice. Just change one thing and they're all changed. Makes fixing a lot easier, and as mediawiki foundation seems interested in starting new wiki projects all the time (WikiPeople is something I saw recently), this sisterprojects template will be used more in the future for a larger variety of things. It may seem pointless now when you can "just edit all 8 templates" or whatever, but it leaves a lot of room for expansion and prepares for the future. That's why I like it. --Me at work 21:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. When making a new template to link to a sisterproject, we can see whether we use it or not.--Patrick 22:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sollog

I see no reason to create a template about a specific group of vandals/POV pushers, considering that someday all of the vandals we have now will be replaced with new ones. Vacuum c 16:19, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC) request withdrawn, as it is a unanimous keep. 02:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Template:SollogPuppet is the same as this one. Goplat 16:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Mild keep. Silly, but actually useful. -- Infrogmation 16:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sollog has many sock puppets; it is useful to know who is one and who isn't. Wikiacc 16:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please have a look at Talk:Sollog and see the history of dealing with this vandal. We've found the templates quite useful in dealing with the problem. Gamaliel 18:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it Wyss 19:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It has been a handy tool for herding the various manifestations of an insidious deathporn spammer. Fire Star 20:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until this vandal actually is replaced by new ones. dbenbenn | talk 16:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Not an ordinary vandal, also hell persistent. Quite usefull template. - JohnyDog 18:00, 31 Jan 2005

(UTC)

• Keep. Once you look at Talk:Sollog, you will understand why this template exists. Edeans 20:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I hadn't realized (or I'd forgotten) that there were two identical templates. I can't argue with deletion with either one of them. I would argue strongly against deletion of both: it has (they have) been very useful, as pointed out above. -- Hoary 00:19, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Why not redirect SollogPuppet to Sollog? – flamurai^TM 03:25, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sr

Oh come on. This template generates just the text "See also: somepage". It usage isn't documented anywhere, and I can't figure out why it was created. I would like to take this opportunity to thank User:Patrick for helping so vigorously to keep WP:TFD in business. -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

• Keep. This is for self-references, see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: these are acceptable in templates because for mirrors and forks they cause no inconvenience, mirrors and forks can simply blank the template.--Patrick 03:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not terribly useful, and we can't change our behavior for the convenience of mirrors and forks. — Dan | Talk 03:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Currently the policy is that self-references are only allowed using a template. Please participate in Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references if you like to change that.--Patrick 11:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're misinterpreting "policy". Self-references are anything that says "... Wikipedia ...". Simply linking to or refering to an article by its name is not a self-reference. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
    • Since Dan wants to go even further than me and allow self-references without template, the question is only whether to use a template for these links, so there is no basis for Netoholics deletions of the links.--Patrick 21:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, actually, Netoholic, I think you're the one who is confused about policy here. People systematically (and appropriately) delete links into talk space or wikipedia space, under that policy. In the rare case where those links are appropriate, this would be a good way to handle them.
• Keep. I can see the use for this, but only with clear instructions for using it. I will add those on its discussion page. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:14, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to Template:selfref. The above arguments have convinced me of its usefulness, but templates with incomprehensibly short names are silly. —AlanBarrett 20:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Election Samoa & Template:Election samoa

are redirects to Template:Politics of Samoa--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the lowercased one, redirect the correctly cased one. — MikeX (talk) 11:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Template:PromoPhoto

"promotional" != "fair use" [2], and, given the ubiquity of "promotional" websites, this template is an advert (and attractor) for copyvios. Unlike book/album covers, lyrics, screenshots, logos &c., the source/copyright holder/author of the "fair-used" promo pic is seldom credited, consulted, or shown any of the courtesies we expect others to show when reproducing our content. [3] [4] [5] chocolateboy 22:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an image tag that is absolutely appropriate to have. Image tagging does not relieve uploaders from the responsibility of identifying the source, nor was it ever indicated as doing so. Promotional photos from press releases, etc. are widely used here, and it is definitely appropriate to have an individual copyright tag for them. Maybe reword, but certainly keep. -Lommer | ^talk 23:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the requirements for an article to achieve featured status is to have an illustration, so unless a Wikipedia is lucky enough to snap a celebrity and avoid having their camera slagged by a bodyguard, the only way we're ever going to manage this is with a promotional photograph. It is the responsibility of the uploader to make sure they have acquired the proper permission to use the photo on Wikipedia: surely we should assume good faith without evidence otherwise. --Phil | Talk 12:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. IIRC, Fair Use doesn't actually require that the source be credited. (GFDL does). Tagging an image ((PromoPhoto)) is a useful part of supplying a fair use rationalle. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Images should be tagged with their license or copyright status by the uploader. That the image is promotional does not provide any real information about its license, source, or copyright status. It could be fair use, or it could be "free to use given that.." or it could be any other license. That it is believed to be promotional does not provide any information about its actual source. All image pages that use only this template should be changed to "unverified" IMO. --ChrisRuvolo 09:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This template should only be used on images where the source has been verified and the image's status as "promotional" confirmed. --Phil | Talk 17:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, that would be reasonable to me if the text is updated to reflect that. However, this is not how the tag is being used. See for example Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg, it's talk page, and Wikipedia:Image sleuthing. Use seems to have been "it looks promotional. fair use?" "sure, works for me." "ok. {{PromoPhoto}}" --ChrisRuvolo 22:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • No offence to them, but on Wikipedia:Image sleuthing there is a lot of that logic eg:"this looks like it was made by a wikipedian, therefore we can tag it GFDL.".

More on-topic, I vote to keep the promo tag. Any tag can be mis-used, but that's not grounds for deletion IMO.

Boffy b 19:27, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Keep. The reasoning for deleting this is not really correct. A promotional work has a strong effect on whether an item is fair use and it's useful to highlight items which have this as a significant part of their fair use reasoning. The reasoning is correct that it would be nice to credit the author of a work used for promotional purposes, even though that author knew that the work would be used for promotion and would hace broad fair use as a result - we should always seek to properly credit the creator of visual works, in part to address moral rights. We've already seen at least one copyright complaint from a UK photographer in relation to a fair use of an album cover: the photographer objected to the use of the original image, not to the modified form used on the album cover, showing that yes, the photographer did recognise that the prmotional use was OK, as it is, under fair use. The combination of promotional material and use in a public education work such as Wikipedia makes for a very strong fair use situation. It is good also to explain the rest of the fair use reasoning, though, instead of simply relying on this template as the only text. Jamesday 17:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just used the tag on a publicity photo I uploaded of an actress that was taken in 1969. Maybe Fairold might have been a more appropriate tag, but I think Promophoto has its place. 23skidoo 19:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not just about fair use; there's also implied or probablistic license. AaronSw 23:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with earlier comments. Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We need to crack down on people slapping a fair use template on anything they want. Fair use is useful to have and I don't object to it per se, but very rarely do I see the source of the image credited or any copyright information or fair use rationale stating which legal provisions relating to fair use the uploader is taking advantage of. The Alexis Bledel photo above is a classic example: "I want to use it therefore it's a promotional photo and fair use." There may be a place for promotional photos where a link can be provided to an official website or something where it's clear that a gallery of photos is provided for promotional purposes, but all too often an image from a professional photoshoot of someone that's been copyvio'd somewhere on the internet is wrongly labelled "promotional". — Trilobite (Talk) 09:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Another reason to delete this template might be because Template:Promotional and this one are redundant. --ChrisRuvolo 20:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:WWEchampions

Better dealt with using a category. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 09:43, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree completely, better a list or a category... category would be optimal, this template footer is squished to hell and back, if you have that many entries ... and you have to use 6pt font just to fit them all ... it doesnt belong as a template.  ALKIVAR™ 09:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree. Too many entries, better as a category or list. ÅrУnT^†_∈ 09:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to category. — MikeX (talk) 10:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• A category wouldn't preserve the chronological order, and it couldn't show the gaps (times where there was no champion). There's already a list of these at List of WWE Champions Goplat 21:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too big. Better dealt with the "preceded by/succeeded by" table and link to the list in every article. – flamurai^TM 22:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Convert to a list. Jtalledo 13:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it alone, or replace with complete history. I'd leave it alone entirely. It's not that big, and names aren't exactly added frequently. If it is deleted, how about replacing it with a complete title history, with dates and everything? ekedolphin 07:27, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:CatAZ

This is a functional duplicate of Template:CategoryTOC. It is missing a link to the numbers, that's all. The extra link on Template:CategoryTOC may not be needed in every category it's used in, but we should standarise on one single template for this function. After all, are we going to make another new template for a category that happens to be missing a "Z" section? -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

• Keep. For categories that do not have numbers and would not logically have numbers (for example people-related categories), why use a template that has a link for numbers? older≠wiser 21:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Quite a few lists use the other CompactTOC templates, even though they may not have numbered entries. One link (which I moved and de-emphasized in my other version of CategoryTOC) is a minor consideration, when the goal is to make things consistent. -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
    • Yes and quite a few also use Template:CompactTOC which does not have numbers. What is the harm in having a choice of two category TOC templates? There are four TOC templates for articles (not counting two others that are also on TFD). older≠wiser 22:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • The difference, which I've noted on Template talk:CategoryTOC, is that it is dubious if we even really need any template for categories, since a software modification to generate easy links seems much preferred. On your first point, Template:CompactTOC is only still in general use by virtue of the fact that it was the first. For Template:CatAZ, we have a choice in the direction to go. -- Netoholic @ 22:11, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
        • If the TOCs can be displayed through a software change, that's great. Any indication of when this might be available? . . . Didn't think so. And in the meantime are we supposed to just sit on our hands and ignore an available tool while hoping the developers will do this change soon? As for your second point, was it discussed somewhere whether the TOC templates should or should not have numbers? Or was adding numbers to the other templates just more of you making unilateral "improvements"? older≠wiser 22:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • Netoholic's Law - As a wiki discussion grows longer, the probability of an accusation by one user of another acting unilaterally approaches one . I've made thousands of "unilateral" edits, so have you. The point is whether they are -good- edits or not. All my work on the TOC templates has been beneficial and supported by the readers of this page, and every article which has been affected. -- Netoholic @ 22:59, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
            • All my work on the TOC templates has been beneficial and supported by the readers of this page, and every article which has been affected. Seems I recall at least one or two times where not everyone was happy with changes that you had made. I've no doubt of your good intentions, though I do question both your judgement and taste at times. older≠wiser 23:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Since this is evolving, let a thousand flowers bloom and standardise if necessary later. By the way, I don't like the way the tfd box appears on categories, since it takes some effort to discover which template it refers to. --Henrygb 22:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What's the big deal if there are two ways of doing a category TOC. I like how this looks for the categories where it makes sense, check out Category:British MPs. I also agree with Henrygb that the TFD box is real confusing and misleading. -- Samuel Wantman 03:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep This is something that really should be handled by the MediaWiki software. Until then, it just looks cleaner to be able to use a TOC without the numbers link when the category has no articles that start with numbers. BlankVerse 10:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep And please remove it from the nominations asap as all the pages where it is used look messy at the moment. Philip 18:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Agree that this should ideally be a software feature, but this is a decent stopgap. – flamurai (t) 14:18, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

template:unreferenced

Yet another meta tag that we don't need. →Raul654 18:12, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It represents a policy important enough to have its own pages. The main criticism -- that it can be used inappropriately on pages that do not require citations -- is a criticims of how this might be applied, not of the tag itself. No editor should through around these warning tags carelessly. But we still need them. Slrubenstein 15:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's needed. --Neigel von Teighen 19:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment from creator: I wouldn't have created it if it didn't have a definite use. See discussion on wikien-l - David Gerard 19:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • And further, it's already working to stimulate authors to add references - see my talk page. If it's voted to be removed, I hereby promise to do the template deletion and cleanup of all uses of it myself - David Gerard 20:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Geoff/Gsl 21:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep JYolkowski 21:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I hate this template - I find it ugly and deprecating to any article it appears on. However, I recognize that it has its purpose and that it will be better for wikipedia in the end if this template is removed because sources are added to the article in question rather than just deleted because its ugly. -Lommer | ^talk 21:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking and want to revise my position. I still think this template should be kept, but should be limited in scope to articles with a great wealth of content that needs to be referenced. I do not think that applying it to every new stub (as is currently being undertaken) is appropriate as I believe that most stubs contain general knowledge that doesn't need to be referenced thoroughly. You also run into the problem of stubs such as Sigma (character). How the hell is anyone supposed to find references for an article like that and thereby remove the template legitimately? -Lommer | ^talk 22:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Information about Sigma is given in plenty of Capcom-released sourcebooks, for example, ISBN 4-06-259006-9, ISBN 4-06-259024-7, ISBN 4-06-329293-2, as well as information given on http://www.capcom.co.jp/. Of course, given the (lack of) content on that particular article I can assure you none of these works were referenced, cited or not. --Boco XLVII 04:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with Lommer. I've just added a stub about Trethomas, a village in Wales. This doesn't need to be referenced - would you see references for such basic facts in a print encyclopaedia?
  • I'll stop putting it on stubs - David Gerard 01:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It might be nice to make it appear as a ==References== heading and then the message below it in just text. Overusing these boxes might lose their impact. That aesthetic has nothing to do with whether it's needed (we do need it), but maybe that would be more pleasant to those who don't like to see the meta tag box.... Yes, it is important to the reader to know that an article is unsourced and of questionable verifiability. From all the news articles questioning just that, apparently it's something more important to the readers than it seems to be to many editors. :) --Sketchee 22:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you think it'd be better like that? Would it have the right effect? - David Gerard 01:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I like the idea. Please try making a version like that. It may actually need two versions: 1. no references and 2. not enough references to support the content of the article. / Uppland 13:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Someone would then have to check all the cited references to make sure they don't support the content of the article. —msh210 18:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it would have the right effect. Readers need to know that the information has no references and editors just need to know that they should add them. I think the alert box is worries people since it's the form that we use for many major concerns like neutrality and disputes. --Sketchee 01:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this would have enough effect and not rankle the ire of so many users as it clearly has in its current usage. Also fits better into the encyclopedia context overall. -Lommer | ^talk 01:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that if this is done, subst: should be used, so that a references header is added. —msh210 18:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! There are so many pages with no references, adding this notice to all of them doesn't help anything. If you want to reach individual users, leave notes on their talkpages. --Node 22:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But is currently being used inappropriately in at least one instance: Ryhall. It's not the template, but it's use in inappropriate cases that needs to be curtailed. 80N 23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This template is completely redundant, since it is already obvious whether an article contains reference or not. Also, it might harm the Wikipedia, since detractors will use articles without references (something most dictionaries have most of the time anyway) against us. Also, many articles are rather obvious to those familiar with the field, so that references for such "basic" facts might be hard to find, or have been read by the authors ages ago, during their first semester, or similar. Should the template therefore be kept, we must make sure it is only applied to articles which cover significantly more than the basics. -- AlexR 23:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I completely with AlexR 23:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) that (1) it's obvious when an article has no references; and (2) if the template is kept, it should be used only when references are necessary. I agree also with never using the template on a stub if the template is kept. —msh210 18:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Totally unnecessary, and just more clutter. What does the stub tell us - that there are no references or external links? Surely the fact that there are no references or external links shown on the article already tells us that. Grutness|^hello? 00:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that references need to be added however I feel David Gerard is going about it in the wrong way. I think that applying this template to every substub that appears on Special:Newpages (see for example Hrinova) is frightening to newcomers who need to be encouraged, not scared off. This action is abrasive and needs to be controlled. Overall though the template is useful. I would also consider applying the template to the talk page rather than the article itself. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably not applicable to substubs, no. I do like the suggestion above - David Gerard 01:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or reword. This should only be applied to articles where the is material that obviously needs to be cited. In the examples above, this template does nothing to enhance Wikipedia. (Well, it made me laugh, if that counts.) – flamurai^TM 01:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 01:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too many articles. --Oldak Quill 02:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vacuum c 02:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only does this template serve to make wikipedia look unreliable and amateurish, but is often placed on articles completely unneccessarily. For example, Konstantinos Chalkias. A short two-line stub, containing no infomation which is not in the realm of common knowledge. Grunners 07:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I reiterate that articles without references are pretty amateurish, IMHO. Even at the high school or college report level, they would either at best be graded low or at worst be considered plagerism. This isn't the "Online Common Knowledge Repository", it's the "Online Encyclopedia". ;D --Sketchee 01:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 08:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Only keep if people can agree that tags like this are more appropriate on the talk page, otherwise, Delete. older≠wiser 13:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the time being at least, and experiment a bit more. I like the idea of Sketchee above to make it look like a normal references header, but with a comment below that the text may need checking and addition of sources and references. But perhaps avoiding putting it on two line stubs is a good idea. / Uppland 13:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But if you do keep it, only use it where there needs to be references. I'm not going to add a reference that just lists me. Nonenmac 18:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless used only in cases where the status of the information is in question. There is really no point in putting this tag on Province of Pavia (which, incidentally, does contain a reference to it:Provincia di Pavia). If used in general, this tag is roughly equivalent to saying "this is a Wikipedia article". (It would be more useful to identify the relatively few articles that are properly referenced.) I would support a more specific tag, or this one if it were more specificly worded and applied. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to the Talk page and only use it on pages over a certain length (ie, NOT to stubs). --Boco XLVII 04:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 1. There isn't much difference between an article that has no references and one that happens to have one (for some arbitrary fact). 2. Retrofitting references to an article is always a bit of a subtle art. 3. Yes, I think people should give references, and I'm pretty good about it myself, I just don't think a template like this is useful. And certainly not on the article page. If you have anything like good reason to challenge a particular statement, absolutely, ask on the talk page for a reference to back it up, but this is liable to produce a reference covering the most obvious facts in an article and leave precisely what is problematic still unsourced, but less obviously so. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:18, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's going to be added to 95% of the articles on Wikipedia. RickK 08:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • That 95% of article on wikipedia have a major problem is a reason to delete a template meant to increase awareness of the problem? - Taxman 14:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's badly needed. It can be added to an article as a last resort, simply in order to concentrate people's minds, like the "clean up" tag, and like NPOV and totally disputed. SlimVirgin 10:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete we already have template:attention which covers missing references and other article inadequacies. [If it is kept, hide it on the Talk page, and NEVER add it to a stub or substub.] BlankVerse 11:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but only on the talk page and only for articles over a stub in length. - Taxman 14:12, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with reasons given by others. Probably most of our articles have no references. It might make more sense to note the ones that do, as potentially being of higher quality. I would not object to this template if it is confined to talk pages. Maurreen 16:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as it is not added to stubs. It was suggested on WikiEN-l that it onl be placed on Talk pages. -- llywrch 23:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep can be usefull. Xtra 09:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I applaud the attempt, but I agree with Jmabel's comments above. Johntex 22:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm amazed by the self-deluding attitude evident in some of the comments above. People appear to be arguing, "let's not draw attention to the fact that Wikipedia is massively under-referenced". Not a constructive attitude. We need to do something about the woeful lack of references in Wikipedia, not sweep the issue under the carpet. This template is part of the solution. Deleting it would be adding to the problem. Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world --Neoconned 03:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• What Taxman said. Keep, but put it on talk pages and don't apply it to stubs. Death to obtrusive ugly boxes cluttering the article; I long ago hid them from view in my monobook.css and have not regretted that decision one bit. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Special:Allpages is nearly as accurate ;) -Frazzydee|✍ 14:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but don't use on stubs. — mark ✎ 15:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No new votes for a while.... is the consensus result most accurately described as "Keep, but use only on talk pages". Pcb21| Pete 22:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep and don't use on stubs. (use similar to Template:verify) dab (ᛏ) 07:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template: Car-stub

My fault entirely. Scanned the list of stubs and noticed there were none to do with cars. Sadly, I failed to notice that there was one for automobiles. Redirect to Template: Auto-stub? Grutness|^hello? 10:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• You created it, it is a speedy deletion candidate. Mark it with {{deletebecause|reason}} and someone will get to it sooner. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • I didn't ask for it to be deleted - I asked for it to redirect to Template: Auto-stub. I don't think there's a "Speedy-redirect" template, is there? Grutness|^hello? 23:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • /me looks at the title of the page. This is for requesting deletion. If you want to make it a redirect, go do it. You do not need to list it here. That all being said, this is a useless template, and a bad use for a redirect, so just delete it entirely. -- Netoholic @ 01:17, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Why is it useless? All English speaking countries except the US use the term car - as does much of the US. It's also a shorter term to type. Grutness|^hello?

I've changed it to redirect to Template:Auto-stub. Oh, and given User:Netoholic's concerns, can someone please give me the url of Wikipedia's "Templates for redirection" page? Grutness|^hello?

You can just do it yourself - #REDIRECT [[Target]]. — Dan | Talk 03:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I realise that - as I said, that's what I had done. But Netoholic seemed to imply that I'd listed my suggestion on the wrong page, so I wanted to know where the "Templates for redirection" page was. Doesn't matter. Grutness|^hello?

• It is not that you listed it on the wrong page, it is that there is no need to list it anywhere in the first place. List on this page only if you want something deleted. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppet

This is juvenile and obnoxious. [Perhaps it's more the picture of the sockpuppet than the template itself that is irritating to me. Nevertheless, the template seems unnecessary - it's easy enough just to note that the user is a sockpuppet]. john k 04:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful. --SPUI (talk) 05:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agreed. Grutness|^hello? 06:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also agree. jni 07:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please note that Template:Sollog had the very same picture and was recently featured here. It was a unanimous keep. The picture injects some well-needed humor into Wikipedia. Vacuum c 01:03, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep OneGuy 07:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Should not be misused, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful. Bart133 (t) 19:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems that this template, with similar text and picture, was deleted Jan 15, without any apparent discussion on TFD. Would Danny care to post an explanation of why he unilaterally deleted the template? Vacuum c 23:45, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -Frazzydee|✍ 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers

(and redirect at MediaWiki:CompactTOCwithnumbers)

Completely redundant with other compactTOCs. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

• I created that one nearly year ago, and at some point it was quite popular template. But given it's totally stupid name, and existence of later created CompactTOC2, I say redirect to CompactTOC2 or delete. Przepla 23:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep just because I think it is the nicest of the set. Put "Top" in and delete the others. --Henrygb 22:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers2

(and redirect at MediaWiki:CompactTOCwithnumbers2)

Previously used on only about a dozen lists, but completely redundant with Template:CompactTOC2. -- Netoholic @ 20:42, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

• Just redirect if it duplicates; don't delete, redundancy is good. Dunc|☺ 11:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirecting Template:db to Template:deletebecause is useful, I suppose, as a shortcut. Redirecting this template serves no function and only clutters the listing of all templates, making future maintenance of the namespace more difficult. -- Netoholic @ 15:31, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

February 16

Template:Politics of Taiwan

The discussion over with the title of this template continues at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of Taiwan→ ..of the Republic of China. — Instantnood 11:47 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

This template should be renamed Template:Republic of China politics. Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.". — Instantnood 19:39, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

See also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Politics of Taiwan. — Instantnood 10:54, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• • By nominating I support renaming. — Instantnood 19:41, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
• Plase be consequent with the dicussion at the move Politics of China page. (I oppose there).Gangulf 20:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Most people would be confused about the term "Republic of China", which is hardly ever used. Use the more common and the only generally understood term, jguk 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Taiwan" is not an accurate and NPOV title. If one gets confused it just a few clicks to double check at the relevant artices on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 20:00, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This is an Wikipedia internal matter and has no effect on the content of articles. I dont see what would be gained by moving this.--Jiang 04:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. If the title is not renamed I will proposed to remove contents not related to the island or the province of Taiwan, and to add brief contents about politics of Taiwan during Japanese occupation, the Qing era, the Cheng Ch'eng Kung era, and the early colonisation by Dutch and Portuguese, with the politics sections in history of Taiwan as the main articles. — Instantnood 11:20, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
    • ...which will simply make more work for yourself, and take up more time which could be used for debating oher things, since I seriously doubt that that move would be supported. Grutness|^hello? 09:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree. But that's the cost of keeping this title. Assistance from whom opposed the move would be necessary. — Instantnood 10:57, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 20:23, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Jguk - the term "Republic of China" is not understood to mean Taiwan in much of the world, rather the term would instantly make people think "China", which would make them think mainland China. Grutness|^hello? 09:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The content of the template already tells it's about "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)". — Instantnood 10:58, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose or move and keep as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 11:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So do you support a move? — Instantnood 12:47 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a template; the wording is only seem by editors. I'm saying the current title should still be valid to type; who cares exactly where the template lies? --SPUI (talk) 18:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Rename. "Taiwan" is ambiguous. I personally prefer "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" which is the most precise and accurate wording. There are also probably enough stubs that a "Politics of Taiwan - pre-Republic of China" stub should also be created. BlankVerse ∅ 05:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's not the conventionally understood name, and this is used by editors rather than readers - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Taiwan to the ROC is pretty much like England to the United Kingdom. — Instantnood 18:30 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

The discussion over with the title of this template continues at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of Taiwan→ ..of the Republic of China. — Instantnood 11:47 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

I had some discussion with Instantnood and I suggested the compromise to name these kind of templates ..of Republic of China - Taiwan. I think this might be less POV Gangulf 22:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gangulf agreed with "..of Republic of China (Taiwan)" but she/he prefers "..of Republic of China - Taiwan". — Instantnood 22:21 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• Seems livable to me, though the name might become unwieldy for editing. The name should have "Taiwan" in it, though - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The discussion over with the title of this template continues at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of Taiwan→ ..of the Republic of China. — Instantnood 11:47 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

February 18

Template:Taiwan-stub

(and the category Category:Taiwan-related stubs)

The discussion over with this template, together with the category that it links, continues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Geo-stubs proposal. — Instantnood 11:43 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

The flag of the Republic of China (ROC) is used in this template, and the articles linked to it can be ROC-related. Taiwan is not an accurate and NPOV terms to refer to the ROC, for neither the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan covers 100% of ROC's territories.
Suggestions: rename as Template:ROC-stub (or Template:Republic of China-stub), or spliting into Template:ROC-stub and Template:Taiwan-stub.
(see also relevant discussions at Wikipedia:Requested moves) — Instantnood 19:20, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support renaming as Template:ROC-stub. — Instantnood 19:21, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The term ROC is not commonly used (at least outside the US). Most people would just find it confusing. Keep with the less-confusing name (and change the flag if you wish!) jguk 19:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Taiwan" is not an accurate and NPOV title. And I don't think the wikipedians who have set up the conventions and placed the ROC article at Republic of China (but not Taiwan) are all from the states. — Instantnood 19:26, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• OPPOSE Calling "Taiwan" as a term to be POV is just like calling "Hong Kong" a POV. That template only needs to change the current logo into a logo with Taiwan island. I have been trying to look for a proper sized logo for that replacement. Does the template of China-sub imply all the Chinese people are Lizard? Certainly not. Is every single Chinese are Han and thus the decendence of the Dragon? Nope. Taiwan stub does not have to cover everything that has to be covered in Taiwan island. It only needs to cover Taiwan-realted topics. By your suggestion to enforce the NPOV policy upon Taiwan without pratical ambiguity, we might need to apply the same standard upon the China-stub too.Mababa 20:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Should stubs about Quemoy, Matsu and perhaps Pratas and Taiping be added the tag {{Taiwan-stub}}? — Instantnood 20:49, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
    • I would stand neutral if it split into ROC and Taiwan. Still, please also note that Taiwan is a name more representitive than ROC in all aspect. If we want to confuse people and make readers not able to recognize the political entity based on Taiwan, replacing Taiwan with ROC is the way to go.Mababa 07:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • "Taiwan" fails to represent the entirety of the territories under ROC's control. — Instantnood 11:13, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
        • Quemoy and Matsu could be classified as Taiwan-related since they are ruled by ROC, a government based in Taiwan. If you insist to separate Taiwan and ROC, I do not see a problem to split the two entities if a large overlapping in the two category is not a big deal to other Wikipedians.Mababa 00:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • The situation would be more complicated to include non-Taiwan-related topics as Taiwan-related. — Instantnood 11:21, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
            • I do not think contributers who are familiar with the geopolitics in this area would find it difficult to exert their fund of knowledge to make the appropriate discretion.Mababa 06:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • Very true. But this is an encyclopedia. — Instantnood 08:05 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
                • That's exactly why people should be educated on what is Taiwan-related and Taiwan-unrelated.Mababa 04:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Gozo is politically part of Malta, even though it's not on Malta. Isla de Pinos is politically in Cuba even though it's not on Cuba. Quemoy is politically in Taiwan, even though it's not on Taiwan. Grutness|^hello?
          • Quemoy is not politically in a political entity named Taiwan. The only political entity named Taiwan that really exists is the province of Taiwan of the Republic of China. — Instantnood 07:48 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
          • Quemoy is politically related to Taiwan since it is currently ruled by a government based in Taiwan.Mababa 04:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • But that's not a justification. Some pro-independence politicians do not regard the islands as part of their country. — Instantnood 07:06 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)
              • You're complicating the interpretation. My statement is neutral. No matter if those people do or do not consider the islands as part of their country, they are currently managed by the same government based on Taiwan-island. I am certain that you must know the fact: a large portion of Taiwnaese do not consider Taiwan to be part of China. Should we interpret the current usage of China category capping Taiwan-category as pro-unification/Chinese nationalism oriented and thus constitutes POV? These wordings all contains their political meaning in some aspects. I believe the content of these related articles should bear enough neutral knowledge for the readers to learn what is going on and make judgement without being politically brainwahsed. If we keep on quiblling over these trivials, I wonder when can we conclude this vote. China-stub is done, when do you think we can conclude on this one?Mababa 06:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • Let me put it in this way. The Republic of China, then led by Kuomintang, retreated from mainland China, and continued its existence by controlling some islands in the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait and along the coast of Fukien. It established a "provisional capital" in Taipei. It retained the legitimate representation of China at the United Nations until 1971, and maintained diplomatic relations with many countries as the sole representative of China until the late 1970s (and notably, with the United States until 1978). Not until the transfer of government from Kuomintang to DPP in 2000, Taiwan and the other islands are administered by a government led by a party from the mainland. In other words, Taiwan, together with the other islands, are part of this regime. Although this regime had then had based in Taiwan for more than half a decade, some of the other islands, namely Quemoy and Matsu, have never been part of any political entity named "Taiwan". They are, together with the island of Taiwan, part of this regime which bore the name "Republic of China".
• Suppot. ROC is shorter and more accurate. Neutrality^talk 21:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is only three letter shorter and not necessarily more accurate. I remember there are ~20 countries' name could be shortened as ROC.Mababa 07:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you mind giving some examples? The only one I could name is Republic of the Congo. — Instantnood 11:14, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
      • So the actual number is 11 excluding the ROC discussed here:

		Republic of Cyprus,Republic of Chile,Republic of Colombia,Republic of Cuba,Republic of Costa Rica,Republic of the Congo,Republic of Cameroon,Republic of Cape Verde,Republic of Chad,Republic of Cote d'Ivoire,Republic of Croatia.Using ROC to call Republic of China is not more accurate than using Taiwan.Mababa 00:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
	Is "ROC" a common acronym for any of the named countries? — Instantnood 11:22, Feb 20 2005 (UTC) possibly not, but is it a common abbreviation for Taiwan? The only time I've ever heard of ROC as an abbreviation, it was in psychophysics graphs (Type I and type II decision making processes), the Russian orthodox Church, or for Right of Centre politics. Grutness|hello? 04:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) On the packets of many of the products from Taiwan, "Product of Taiwan, R.O.C." is marked. — Instantnood 12:48 Feb 21 2005 (UTC) let me put the question a different way - is it used as an abbreviation for Taiwan anywhere except Taiwan? Grutness|hello? 05:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Less and less products are labeled as "Product of Taiwan, R.O.C.", instead, more and more use Taiwan directly.Mababa 07:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) I am not from Taiwan and I do not know what is written on the packets of products for the domestic market. My observation is based on the packets of products exported. — Instantnood 07:49 Feb 24 2005 (UTC) You just need to purchase more.Mababa 04:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) Yes I know one some products, "R.O.C." is not written. That's why I said "on many of the products from Taiwan, "Product of Taiwan, R.O.C." is marked". — Instantnood 07:08 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

strongly oppose. 1) Category:Taiwan-related stubs is a subcategory if Category:Taiwan. Taiwan is by far the more widely known name for the country/province. 2) By referring to it by its official name of "Republic of China", there will be more confusion, since the China People's Republic is also a "Republic of China". Grutness|^hello? 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• There are already Category:Republic of China and Category:Taiwan. The same rule should be applied. Only the current government in Taipei bears the official title of "Republic of China", but not the one in Beijing. — Instantnood 11:14, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and if you asked 100 people what the capital of the Republic of China was, 95 would probably say Beijing. (Well, quite a number would probably say Peking, but...). "Republic of China" is simply too confusing a name to use. (Perhaps China-Taipei would be a reasonable compromise, but that ignores everywhere except the capital). Grutness|^hello?
    • I could compromise to have the category titled "Republic of China (Taiwan)..." or "ROC (Taiwan)...". — Instantnood 11:23, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Courtland 23:59, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 00:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree with Grutness. --jag123 17:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Rename. "Taiwan" is ambiguous and imprecise. I personally prefer "Republic of China (Taiwan)stub" which is the most accurate wording. BlankVerse ∅ 05:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment What are being supported here? Changing name or supporting splitting the two entities, ROC and Taiwan? Though Taiwan and ROC overlaps greatly, the political implication and also the legal implication is entirely different. For a great population in Taiwan, they have differently meanings.Mababa 05:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggested both, although I guess renaming would perhaps be more practical at the time being. Taiwan is currently entirely administered by the ROC, but not all ROC-related topics are Taiwan-related. — Instantnood 06:07 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you suggenting that ROC governemt had a role in helping Dutch rule Taiwan? Or perhaps Japanese rule was a colloaboration between the two government? Not all Taiwan-related topics are ROC-related either.Mababa 06:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Splitting will be the most appropriate, but it's not practical at the time being. To create a new stub template/category, normally at least 100 stub articles are needed. (See WP:WSS#Policy) — Instantnood 06:48 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
        • Please apply the same standard toward your Hong Kong sub categories before calling on Taiwan stub.[6] All the HK stubs add up only meeting the criteria for creating merely one stub category. I do not see any reason why HK deserves six stub categories while Taiwan cannot have one.Mababa 03:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • They are already created, and it relies on the decision at WP:WSS/Criteria to have them merged and resorted. To have a new stub category, the requirements have to be fulfilled. — Instantnood 07:11 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the information. I think perhaps we should focus on the current proposal and see any consensus is reached. If not, we can go on and propose the ROC template as well. I do not see either way would be a problem.Mababa 08:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • You are welcome. You may also be interested to read the ongoing discussion concerning the stub and biostub template for Quebec-related topics. — Instantnood 08:13 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, for all the reasons other experienced Wikipedia editors of China/Taiwan-related topics state above. —Lowellian (talk) 09:07, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Your ridiculous nationalist POV-warring has even less place in Wikipedia's editorial space than in Wikipedia's article space. VOte to rename to Gdanszkig-stug - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Not all ROC-related topics are Taiwan-related, and vice versa. — Instantnood 10:48 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
• Comment China-stub discussion is closed. Shall we also conclude this vote?Mababa 04:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The discussion over with this template, together with the category that it links, continues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Geo-stubs proposal. — Instantnood 11:43 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

Template:China-geo-stub

(and the category Category:China geography stubs)

The discussion over with this template, together with the category that it links, continues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Geo-stubs proposal. — Instantnood 11:43 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

Currently it covers geostubs of both mainland China and territories under the control of the Republic of China (ROC). Hong Kong geostubs are already covered by Template:Hong Kong-geo-stub.

The suggestion is to split the template into two, with the titles Template:Mainland China-geo-stub and Template:ROC-geo-stub (or Template:Republic of China-geo-stub) respectively. — Instantnood 20:56, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

There are currently 201 articles in the category of China geography stubs.

Two involves both mainland China and the ROC

• Taiwan Strait,
• Cathay,

16 are related to the ROC only

Chiayi, Chungli City, Cishan, Kaohsiung, Douliou City, Fongyuan, Fort Zeelandia (Taiwan),

Guanmiao, Tainan, Guantian, Tainan, Jhubei City, Jhudong, Hsinchu, Kenting National Park,

Tsoying, Wufong, Taichung, Xiaonanmen Branch, Yongkang City, Yunlin County,

and 183 are related to mainland China only. (No article is related to Hong Kong or Macao.) — Instantnood 19:03, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Currently, most ROC stubs related to geography are listed at Category:Taiwan-related stubs instead of Category:China geography stubs. Probably people are hestitated to put on {{China-geo-stub}} tag on ROC geography stubs. — Instantnood 12:31 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support spliting the template. — Instantnood 20:57, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• strongly, violently, and vociferously oppose Many of the geography items in this category deal with both the Mainland and Taiwan. Many of the people working on expanding these items into full articles are working on items relating to both the Mainland and Taiwan. instantnood, you seem to fail to realise exactly what the purpose of stub templates is - to place small articles which need expansion into categories where they will be most easily accessible to the editors working in these fields. As such, the current schema works well. And if it ain't broke, why try to "fix it" so that it won't work as well? At the very least, shouldn't you run these suggestions past Wikiproject Stub Sorting? Grutness|^hello? 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There are currently 201 articles in the category of China geography stubs. Two involves both mainland China and the ROC, 14 are related to the ROC only, and 185 are related to mainland China only. No article is related to Hong Kong or Macao. I don't think readers would recognise Category:China geography stubs covers geostubs related to the ROC, until they read the notice on the of the category, or see category's link at an ROC-related article. — Instantnood 11:50, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Designating a large stub-category for deletion just to draw attention to it's need for splitting ( in your opinion ) is pretty close to vandalism, Insta. Courtland 23:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • Renaming for categories are done at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. I didn't know templates, or specifically stub categories, are dealt with different procedures. Thank you for telling. — Instantnood 11:52, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Grutness. --jag123 17:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support split into {{ROC-geo-stub}} and {{PRC-geo-stub}}. Both are shorter, easier to type, and more accurate, folks. Neutrality^talk 20:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hong Kong already has its own geo stubs template and category. It would be better to use "mainland China", a term that excludes Hong Kong and Macao from the rest of the PRC, than "PRC". — Instantnood 19:01, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hong Kong only has a separate category because there is a WikiProject:Hong Kong. If there was not, then these stubs would also be part of China-geo-stub. If Instantnood wants to start up his own WikiProject:Taiwan, then a separate stub category would be called for. As it is, he has pointed out several things - that people are using the stub category for Taiwan (as the 16 stubs show), that some of the stubs relate to both China PRC and Taiwan, and that there are too few Taiwan stubs to have a viable separate category. These are three very good reasons to keep the current category as is. Grutness|^hello?
    • I suppose you are referring to the fact that Hong Kong is covered by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Republic of China is also covered, but not Taiwan. — Instantnood 12:15 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm referring to the projects being run by the people on the Hong Kong Wikipedian noticeboard (it seems I was wrong in that they haven't set it up as a distinct WikiProject, however). Grutness|^hello? 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nationalist POV-warring idiocy. - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Not actually. Although {{China-geo-stub}} is supposed to be applied to ROC-related geostubs, but it had happened to be ROC-related geostubs are mostly tagged with {{Taiwan-stub}}. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#The China-Taiwan Mess. — Instantnood 10:54 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

The discussion over with this template, together with the category that it links, continues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Geo-stubs proposal. — Instantnood 11:43 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

A suggested compromise

The names of stub templates - in fact the names of templates in general - are only used by Wikipedia editors and aren't displated on the articles. Why not keep the names as they are at present, but amend the text of the templates? Hey Instantnood? Would that make you happier?Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Grutness|^hello? 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• However most ROC related geostubs are now added the {{Taiwan-stub}} tag and listed at category:Taiwan-related stubs, instead of {{China-geo-stub}} and category:China geography stubs. Although the names of the template are not displayed in the articles, the names of the categories are. — Instantnood 13:01 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and changing the text of the template would change the destination category of the stubs, would it not? Grutness|^hello?
    • Theoretically yes. If the template is changed to be linked to a category with another title. However there is a known bug of category linked by a template. Articles with the template stay in the previously linked category until they are edited.
      Nevertheless, creating a new stub template and category for ROC-related geostubs, and changing the stub category China geography stubs to category:Mainland China geography stubs can better solve the problem. — Instantnood 04:57 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
      • Currently the only problem is that you perceive the stub messages as being wrong. I was suggesting a way of keeping stub sorting working as is it is now (i.e., well), yet having a stub message more favourable to you. Seemed a good compromise. Changing and/or splitting stub categories (i.e., no compromise on your part) would create unnecessary stub categories changes and/or unneccessary new stub categories. Grutness|^hello? 06:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I understand. But as Mababa has mentioned, The frame of topics of ROC-related and Taiwan-related do not entirely overlap. Changing the wordings of the templates and the categories that the templates linked with would not solve the problem entirely. — Instantnood 08:03 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmm. Perhaps we're both looking at this the wrong way. I' ve just looked in category:Taiwan-related stubs. Of the 80 articles in there, almost 70 should be in China-geo-stub. In which case, there has been some dreadful miscategorising going on. With 70 more Taiwan (RoC, whatever) geo-stubs, that should be enough for a separate geo-category. it would also mean that there are far too few Taiwan (yada yada)-related stubs for a viable category... This may need more thought over at WSS... Grutness|^hello? 11:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • This is a very good indication for creating a Taiwan-geo-stub. Please remember, Taiwan, as a geographical entity is separate from China. Putting Taiwan under China-geo-stub is somehow tinted with political implication.Mababa 07:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• That's very true indeed. And at the time when I was editing Taiping I found it difficult to tell which stub category should it be added to. — Instantnood 11:56 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)

Update: After some deep thought, more information coming to light, and seemingly endless wrangling on tfd, I've come up with a possible solution to the Taiwan/RoC and China/PRChina stub issues, which I've listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria. Please have a look and make any comments you see fit! Grutness|^hello? 11:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. — Instantnood 12:02 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to thank me - I'm still opposing your views! Grutness|^hello?
    • Just to thank you for bringing this out of the deadlock. :-D — Instantnood 10:10 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

The discussion over with this template, together with the category that it links, continues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Geo-stubs proposal. — Instantnood 11:43 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)

Template:China-stub

(and the category Category:China-related stubs)

Currently it covers stubs of both mainland China-related topics and China-related topics. The former deals with articles of mainland China (i.e. People's Republic of China (PRC) excluding Hong Kong and Macao), and the latter deals with things about China in general, such as historical events, calligraphy, etc.

The suggestion is to split the template into two, with the titles Template:China-stub and Template:Mainland China-stub respectively. — Instantnood 20:53, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support spliting the template. — Instantnood 20:54, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, do you plan to update all of the articles that use these templates? --jag123 23:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. But that will be incredibly time consuming and everybody's help is welcome and necessary. — Instantnood 11:22, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• strongly oppose. Current use of this template is for items relating to Mainland China and those relating to the whole of China (both mainland and Taiwan) prior to the latter's secession. Furthermore, Mainland China still claims sovereignty over Taiwan, and as such some articles relating to Mainland China post-1949 also relate to Taiwan. Sorting out exactly which is which is best left to those who are working on Chinese articles, and they will find it far easier to look through one category than two (largely overlapping) categories.
  • The two split categories will be linked to each other. — Instantnood 11:05, Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Discuss these desires to split templates/categories in the context of the stub sorting Wikiproject. Courtland 23:58, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • Thank tou. — Instantnood 11:24, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• oppose this "mainland China" thing only appeared because of the communist rebellion (aka revolution) and the need to distinguish the two Chinas. What do we do about imperial and ancient China? If this gets large enough, then maybe create a stub for Communist China, but otherwise, its awkward to limit Chinese historical topics to "mainland China"--Jiang 04:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: if the idea of this proposal is analogous to the Taiwan-related template, then this proposal should be separating PRC from China, not mainland-China from China. Current proposal separates HK and Macau from China.Mababa 07:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There will be five, namely China, mainland China, ROC, Hong Kong, and Macao. — Instantnood 12:01, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not see PRC in your proposed categories. Do you mean that ROC is part of China/PRC as HK Macao are? That would constitute a political POV. Or I'm missing something?Mababa
        • Sorry for making you confused. I did not suggest PRC-stub because Hong Kong already has its own stubs template and category. Mainland China would be a preferred term to denotes Hong Kong (and probably Macao) are excluded. — Instantnood 11:36 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
          • I regret to inform you that I am not the one get confused. By not creating PRC-stub, your proposal brings HK and Macau to the same political level as ROC, but still separate them from mainland China. Since HK, Macau, and mainland China are all under the jurisdiction of PRC, your proposal actually puts ROC at the same level of HK SAR and thus create the mis-perception that ROC is under PRC as HK. I am not interested in the underlying reason why you persistently make the distinction between mainland China and HK+Macau (I am sure that you must have a very good reason to do so); however, this is a clear political POV biasing against ROC and should not be tolerated. The best thing we could do, if we ever want to make a distinction between these entities, is to creat a PRC-stub and a ROC stub under the cap of China-stub. Then, have mainland China, HK and Macau stubs under the PRC stub. It could be my fault that I should have explain my concern earlier, so that my question would not confuse you at the very beginning. Sorry about that.Mababa 03:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Don't say that and it's nobody's fault. Practically at the time being a stub template for PRC or for Taiwan would not be possible. The [[category:ROC-related stubs]] can be a subcategory of both category:Taiwan and category:ROC, while category:Hong Kong-related stubs is already a subcategory of category:Hong Kong, which is in turn a subcategory of category:PRC. Both category:ROC and category:PRC are subcategories of category:China.
              Afterall by listing a place along with other sovereign states does not necessarily imply they are sovereign states. Many dependent territories and de facto independent but unrecognised countries are listed together with sovereign states on many lists, although their statuses are not the same. — Instantnood 08:34 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
  • (to Jiang) I am not proposing a renaming, but spliting. Things related to imperial or ancient China will be kept at Template:China-stub. — Instantnood 11:27, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 08:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- So after this "deletion"... there will still be a template called "Template:China-stub" ? That's not a deletion, it's just splitting off a subcategory. -- Curps 11:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There will be two categories, with one using the title Template:China-stub. — Instantnood 12:01, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose PRC was not isolated from China while the ROC was asked to be segregated from Taiwan and to be part of China (which implicitly implying PRC) in this proposal.Mababa 00:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. My proposal is to take Template:China-stub off the topics which are only mainland China-related or only ROC-related. — Instantnood 14:12 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Same reasons as above - ancient nation-concept China is much more relavant as a category than the present nation-concepts of PRC and ROC. prat 03:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Template:China-stub will be kept for topics related to China as an (ancient) nation-concept (e.g. 1556 Shaanxi earthquake), and for topics that deal with China as a whole (e.g. Great unity and Three links). The proposed Template:People's Republic of China-stub (or Template:PRC-stub) will be used for topics that are only PRC-related (e.g. Ministry of State Security).
• Strongly oppose, for all the reasons other experienced Wikipedia editors of China/Taiwan-related topics state above. —Lowellian (talk) 09:10, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Liberal party

Summary: Delete - 2, Keep - 4 (excludes nominator). On the line between consensus and no consensus, but clearly not a delete-consensus. Courtland 00:23, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

This reminds me of Wikiproject Alternative medicine spam. Those boxes spanning every single article deemed to be related to alternative medicine was deleted. Link to categories suffices.--Jiang 10:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• KeepI do not agree and I think this discussion we had earlier on Wikipedia. It helps to place an article in a more overall context. Category is not enough, since it links also to other related articles. --Gangulf 10:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• tentative keep, though possibly reworded; the top is awkward. --SPUI (talk) 12:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? Gangulf 21:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Instantnood 12:49 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Delete categories are sufficient. - SimonP 06:16, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While some of these aren't useful, I don't see what's wrong with this one. It's no different than creating a ==See also== section but as several pages would have the links a template makes sense. ( Personally, I hate the extra click to get into categories, then wade through a bunch of things that all probably need to get recategorized and barely knowing what's really related to the incomplete article I was just looking at. Anything to give readers an alternative to the category system seems to be a good thing, IMHO.) --Sketchee 07:40, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this sort of thing is why categories are here. Also, malformed name - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For a template the name is absolutely irrelevant, it is about the content. I agree totally with Sketchee on his argument. Some favor categories, others prefer other ways to browse Wikipedia. So having a template and a category is compatible. Gangulf 07:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Quebec-bio-stub

Summary: Delete - 3; Keep - 4 (includes 1 vote reversal and excludes nominator) No consensus reached after >2 weeks. Courtland 00:12, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

There are only a few articles using this, it can use the broader Canada-bio-stub. --Spinboy 06:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Quebec is a unique province, but I'm not convinced it requires a separate bio stub. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z
• Delete. Not covered in hierarchy of stub-sorting categories. Or rather, is covered - by canada-bio-stub. Unlikely there will ever be the 50+ stubs usually considered necessary to justify a separate category. And general consensus is that nationality should be further split into occupations rather than subnational divisions. Grutness|^hello? 03:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a useful distinction, and the category could easily be populated if more widely used. -- Curps 05:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that, as I said, this is contrary to the current consensus at stub sorting - or should Canada be categorised differently to othe countries? Grutness|^hello? 06:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Will there be stubs for every province in Canada, every state in the US or Australia, every county in England, etc.? Grammarian 21:39, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's useful to editors - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Grammarian. -Frazzydee|✍ 04:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Comparing Quebec to an England county is a spectacular showing of either ignorance or contempt (the term sub-national is also quite questionable). Why not compare it to Scotland, the true equivalent, for which no one would object to see appear such a thing, if not for a fraction of a fraction of English imperialists? Again, Quebec is brought down to the status of somewhat of a lesser and less deserving nation, even among other non-sovereign nations. Even by the standards of some opponents here, this is acceptable for two reasons amongst others. First: Wikipedia classifies these stubs as stubs by *region*. Second... surprise... places like Texas (!) and Oceania have such stubs. ...there are even stubs for micronations, such as Tuvalu, with a population of 11,468 (quick reminder, Quebec has more than seven and a half million). I shall point out that while the Quebec stubs were created only days ago, Quebec already has far more stubs than places like Tuvalu. And the Quebec-bio-stubs are quickly getting to the said 50 stubs. It will quite possibly be soon surpassed: the new but thriving Wikipedia:Quebec wikipedians' notice board is working on the task of creating stubs for Quebec Members of the National Assembly of Quebec (please note: National Assembly), signers, filmmakers, etc., and this will soon create tons of stubs and make the existence of Quebec-bio-stub even more necessary to editors. Finally, Quebec is, proportionally to its size, one of the most represented societies on Wikipedia, justifying equivalent and even new kinds of stubs or other wiki-tools for it. The Quebec stubs deserve a chance. --Liberlogos 07:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Under that logic, we should create stub templates for each province and territory of Canada. --Spinboy 18:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Err... I'm not sure you read right! I was kind of explaining the exact opposite logic. --Liberlogos 23:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • "First: Wikipedia classifies these stubs as stubs by *region*. Second... surprise... places like Texas (!) and Oceania have such stubs."Ontario is a region, if that is what you are trying to argue it by. Ontario is a society too. So is each province. Why should Quebec have it's own set of stubs and not each of the other provinces and territories? --Spinboy 23:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• comment if it is decided to delete this, than logic asks that template:UT-bio-stub goes too. Circeus 04:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • reply to commentAs explained earlier, and in detail on Wikipedia Stub Sorting (where this has been argued out in considerably more detail than here), both Utah and Texas have their own WikiProjects which require the use of separate stubs. Quebec now seems to have as well, so I'm changing my vote to a weak keep because of it. other provinces and states do not have their own wikiprojects and there is thus less (indeed in most cases no) need for separate regional stubs. If this were not the case then I would not favour separate Quebec stubs - as pointed out, all provinces would have similar claim to them and at least one (Newfoundland) would have more claim, as it was a separate nation until 55 years ago. Grutness|^hello? 05:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • comment: Newfoundland was a colony until joining Canada, but yes, at one time, it was it's own dominion. Quebec isn't currently, nor ever has been it's own nation. --Spinboy 06:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Saying that Quebec has never been a nation-state is factual; saying that it is not a "nation" is POV (and the word itself has more than one meaning). And who says that politics alone should be the basis for stub or template classification? Why on Earth would a Vanuatu-stub or Nauru-stub be more legitimate than a Basque-stub, a Kurdish-stub, or a Quebec-stub? Surely classification along cultural lines is more helpful to readers than classification according to... UN membership or lack of it? Our only agenda should be to make a better encyclopedia. -- Curps 07:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Quebec-stub

Summary: Delete - 2; Keep - 6 (excluding nominator). Looks like a consensus at this point. Courtland 00:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Can use Canada-related-stub. Stub is unnecessary. --Spinboy 06:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support Merge back to Canada-stub and Canada-geo-stub. While the template has the potential to be a useful addition, there is no concerted effort from Quebec wikipedians (no wikiproject, no bulletin, no collaboration) to support it. Circeus 12:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) Keep I have just created the Quebec wikipedians' notice board which will certainly be able to make good use of it once the board has been sufficiently publicized. Circeus 18:43, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • They do have Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Quebec —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z
  • Like many other page, it is merely a list of topics. The CWNB has many of these page with listing by theme and areas. OTOH, we could consider, at the Wikiproject Stub Sorting, dividing the massive amount of Canada location stubs into provinces, like it is being considered for US states Circeus 02:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is being considered only in those states where there are separate WikiProjects (of which there are three). Currently there are several thousand US-stubs - there are 300 canada-stubs. Grutness|^hello? 04:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I was refering to Canada-geo-stub. Circeus 15:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • In which case, you should be talking about the nonexistent Quebec-geo-stub.
• Comment Do other Canadian provinces and territories have stub and biostub template? — Instantnood 12:55 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
  • None that I have seen. --Spinboy 17:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike Quebec-bio-stub, I think this template is/will be useful. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z
• Delete No call for separate category - Canada-stub is not hugely populated (about 300 items), and almost all of them relate to the country as a whole. Doubt this would reach the usual criteria either (see previous item on list). And no, Instantnood, other Provinces do not have their own stubs. Up until now, it hasn't been necessary to have them (and it isn't now, either). Grutness|^hello? 04:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a useful distinction, and the category could easily be populated if more widely used. -- Curps 05:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is only logical to have stubs for a given national culture, like Quebec's. Quebec matters experts are not necessarily Canada experts and vice-versa. A Quebec stub under the Canada-stub system is diluted and lost in a foreign subject pool. Again, I hope I do not have to remind people of the offensive nature of comparing Quebec with regional provinces or having it brought down under another national flag. --Liberlogos 18:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • so you'll also be wanting Basque-stub, Catalan-stub, Breton-stub, Corsica-stub, Kashmir-stub, Chechnya-stub, Somaliland-stub, Hawaii-stub, Newfoundland-stub, Padania-stub, Val d'Aoste-stub, Cornwall-stub, Occitan-stub, Nagorno-Karabakh-stub, and Karelia-stub, I take it? As for quebec experts, as Circeus pointed out, there is no wikiproject or similar. If there were one, it might make sense to keep this category. There isn't. Grutness|^hello? 04:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Quebec isn't a nation. --Spinboy 05:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As I stated higher, will there be stubs for every province in Canada, every state in the US or Australia, every county in England, etc.? Grammarian 21:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For a new stub, and even never regional notice board, there are already a couple of dozen articles in the Category:Quebec-related stubs (with another dozen in Category:People from Quebec stubs). I suggest that we give Circeus, Liberlogos, and any other Québécois a chance to see if the Quebec-stub can be useful. Let's give them a few months to find all the Quebec stubs that might be hidden among the stubs and substubs, and to also show that once identified, that they can turn some of the new Quebec stubs into full-fledged articles. BlankVerse ∅ 05:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's useful to editors - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wi

Summary: Delete - 3, Keep - 3. No consensus reached after >2 weeks. Courtland 00:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

• I don't get the point in this: (1) All the information it displays is already in MediaWiki:Noarticletext; (2) Everything you ever want to put in here you better put in either MediaWiki:Noarticletext or the text that appears when you edit a non-existent page (forgot the MediaWiki name); (3) Keeping articles around with only "{{wi}}" in them bloats the DB unnecessarily; (4) Makes links appear blue when an article doesn't actually exist. — Summary: Useless, redundant, should be deleted. — Timwi 12:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  (1) and (2) are wrong. Noarticletext appears for all articles, whether a relevant page exists on Wiktionary or not. {{wi}} is used when we know wiktionary is appropriate. Re (3) ... this really isn't an issue in the grand scheme of things... we only use this templates when a vfd vote has shown we want to move to wiktionary... re (4) there has been some discussion about whether a different colour could be used but it was not considered an important enough thing to change the db scheme for.

• Keep. See Wikipedia:Soft redirect. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z
• Keep, nominator underestimates usefulness. Pcb21| Pete 15:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Scrap this trash. Vacuum c 16:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are people so rude to you about your contributions? Please explain why you think this is "trash", particularly as Markaci and myself have give clear indications why it is actually useful? Pcb21| Pete 19:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I disagree that (1) is invalid as I have encountered a number of {{wi}} pages that pointed to blank Wiktionary entries. Also it floods short pages. - SimonP 06:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've not noticed any cases of that sort myself, and even if it has happened deleting the whole template seems like a rather alarming case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Even before people went round systematically removing uses of this template it never "flooded" shortpages by itself - that page has basically been unusable for lots of other reasons for ages. Pcb21| Pete 17:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I go through shortpages every day, which is why I run into so many erroneous uses of This template. - SimonP 21:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This template was previously discussed at considerable length and made part of Wikipedia:Semi-policy - see Template talk:Wi, Wikipedia:Soft redirect, Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect, etc. If we don't have something on pages which we all agree are dicdef's, people will keep re-linking to them, and then re-creating dicdef pages when they discover they are red links. I can't believe we have to have this debate again. Noel (talk) 19:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sisterproject

Relisting. This is a "meta-template" created to be used on the Sister projects linking templates. Since it was first listed here, though, a page describing the negative side-effects of using meta-templates has been developed, with input from our primary database admin, User:Jamesday. The only use of this lately has been by its creator, where he's been continuing to edit war by re-inserting it into the templates, in spite of the negative side-effects, such as caching problems and database load. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Keep. Neutrality^talk 00:41, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The server load caused by editing this is no worse than that caused by editing every template that uses this style. Goplat 03:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Jamesday, our primary database admin, disagrees, and frankly should know better than anyone else. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • In this case the benefits outweight the costs - lots of views after the page has been generated and few pages to purge, so little extra apache load and no chance of visible database lag. Jamesday 00:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The server load of one central template is greater than that of putting the same content in every template which includes it. Please see the database lag example at Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful to see why. However, in this case, so few pages are affected that it just doesn't matter - updating 1 or 10 pages is going to be invisible. If it was 1,000 or 10,000 that would be a different matter. Jamesday 00:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Using meta-templates is the simplest method of ensuring a consistent format across a group of similar templates, and using the "subst:" feature when creating the "daughter" templates gets rid of the problems mentioned at the Wikipedia thinktank article WP:Meta-templates are considered harmful by Netoholic. BlankVerse ∅ 04:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, then I'd point out that the "daughter" templates have already been converted, and this template can now be deleted. It need not remain just to provide future "subst:" functionality, since it is far better to just copy an existing one or document the basic format on the project page. It seems obscure to keep a template just to perform subst:. In fact, on some templates, subst: will fail to generate properly when there are extra parameters (sometimes, it just breaks), meaning you have to rework it anyway. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been up for deletion before and voted to be kept with an overwhelming majority. A survey has decided (with a smaller majority) that it should be used. Netoholic's determined that his formatting should be used, and disregards all other opinions. — Itai (f&t) 19:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Previous votes don't matter when new information is presented. Your survey on the talk page was improperly run from the start (which I pointed out), and holds no sway over this. Were it not for the documented technical problems raised by its use, I'd have no quarrel. The fact of life is that your template has no beneficial use. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
• Keep and keep - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please review my comments at User_talk:Jag123/Converting stub templates#Technical Good/bad. As applied to this specific template in this specific use:

1. It's convenient to help people work on the content in a central place, as a way of doing so without having to edit the main page itself.
2. It's used in few places, so the concerns about purging large numbers of pages for either apache page building load or database lag don't have much effect in this case.
3. The main page is viewed by a very large number of people, so the number of page views delivered by the extra computer work is unusually high.

In this case, it seems like a good payback for relatively little extra work. If the same template had been used on 10,000 different pages that would be a very different matter - then the costs would be much greater (particularly the lag and cache flushing issues) and the benefit per page viewed much lower (fewer viewers for each generated page).

Yes, it's true that there is extra load and, as a general matter, I think that it's not worth the load of templates within templates, because the cost-benefit ratio is not very favorable. But in this sort of case (lots of views of the page after it has been generated, very few pages to be flushed and significant human convenience) the balance favors doing whatever makes life easier for the humans.

Using subst is good when it's not that important that the latest version is seen - things like the stub or VfD templates are near perfect examples of those. That eliminates most of the overhead (no purging of apaches or database when the template is changed, one lookup then lots of page views following) while still delivering the central editing place. Jamesday 23:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

February 26

Template:Toronto landmarks

What is a landmark is inherently POV, and a template listing all the structures someone considers a landmark in a city the size of Toronto would be vast. - SimonP 16:39, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

• it should be altered, not deleted -- how about changing its name to "Toronto structures" or "Toronto buildings" or "Toronto locations" or "Places in Toronto"? Paradiso 20:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Useful and problems should be fixable - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ditto David Gerard. If somebody disputes whether something's a landmark, we should probably err on the side of inclusivity unless there's a compelling reason not to. But looking over the list, I really don't see much cause for grief. QuartierLatin1968 15:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of Toronto buildings which have a reasonable consensus of opinion as to their landmark status. Dhodges 06:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Templates are always more useful than things like List of landmarks in Toronto or Category:Toronto landmarks because you can get all the information onto all the relevant pages. Miss Pippa 10:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree, I think that category is a far more useful approach. Do many readers of CN Tower care that there is also an article about Dundas Square? I doubt it and those that do want to know about other landmarks can check the category. CN Tower could be in a template then for tallest buildings, Canadian landmarks, world famous tourist attractions etc... and then you end up with way to many templates on the bottom of the page. Templates should be important definitive things. -- Webgeer 20:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Concur with Webgeer and SimonP.) Categories for Toronto structures/buildings, Toronto landmarks, Toronto parks, Toronto theaters, etc. would seem to make more sense. There also are sections for both landmarks and performing arts venues in the Toronto article, which is probably where a person planning a vacation (or some other hunter of landmarks) would be inclined to look first. I note a significant non-overlap between the two lists, which suggests that "landmark" status is very much open to interpretation. I wonder, too, if this material might be best suited to the Wikitravel entry for Toronto. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:listdev or Template:expand list

Surely we don't need both of these - of the two, I'd prefer to keep listdev (quicker to type, to start with). And what's up with this page? Green??? Grutness|^hello? 23:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep listdev. It has the stubby icon that satisfies in part the desire of some to label such lists with a stub template as well, and it is easier to type, agreed. Should use a bot to do the merger from one to the other. Also, I think that a new icon, like a receipt tape raggedly torn off, might be good. Note that the recommendation @ Wikipedia:Incomplete_lists is for "expand list". Courtland 03:30, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Keep listdev: My personal opinion is that I would rather not see any icon with this particular template. Delete Template:expand list, and Template:Stublist, and either Rewrite or Delete Template:Dynamic list. There probably needs to be a separate template for lists that only ocassionally need to be updated (e.g. Wimbledon champions (Men's Singles)), but most of the lists where the dynamic list template is currently being used don't fit that description. BlankVerse ∅ 07:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • listdev/expand list fulfils a different role to dynamic list. Compare List of British rail accidents and List of songs whose title includes geographical names. The former is a list that will have a finite number of entries, and it is possible for it to be considered complete at some point in the future; the latter is potentialyl an almost infinite list that it is extremely unlikely could ever be considered complete. Thryduulf 17:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only listdev. I also agree with BlankVerse's suggestions above. -Sean Curtin 23:27, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• The history of both templates makes interesting reading, especially Jengod's comments in the edit history of Template:listdev. It's clear that one of these templates is redundant. It's just a question of deciding which. The only real decision criteria are the name of the template, that one types, and the number of articles that use it. All else, such as issues with wording and included images, can be solved by editing the template that remains after the other has been deleted. Unfortunately, those two criteria conflict. {{expand list}} is the less popular (as per "What links here"), but is the more meaningfully named and the more easily memorable. It's also the name that is more consistent with {{dynamic list}}. I thus prefer {{expand list}}. The image is the standard "missing piece" graphic used on all of the generic "you can help Wikipedia by expanding it" templates, by the way. Uncle G 06:04, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
• I'd prefer if we keep all and simply redirect to whatever the most useful template name. Redirecting prevents re-creation and confusion. I don't see any value in losing the edit histories of these. -- Netoholic @ 07:33, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to keep expand list, which is more intuitive than listdev and fits in with dynamic list and not list. When I checked the "what links here" it looked as if both templates were used about the same amount. Thryduulf 09:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We can use a redirect and keep using the other one; the only criteria for which to keep should be the contents of each. --SPUI (talk) 14:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• We can compare their first edit date. Listdev is in April 8,2004 and Expand list is in April 18, 2004. -- Shinjiman 03:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Template:Listdev at Template:Expand list. Easy enough to do: make listdev a redirect to expand list, then copy-paste the content. Edit history will be preserved. Alphax ^τεχ 07:36, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep listdev. I find it easier to type and remember. older≠wiser 13:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all - I agree with Neolithic. --HappyDog 17:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect expandlist to listdev, as per netoholic's suggestion. Circeus 17:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

February 28

Template:buddhism

You have already deleted the imitation, Template:CamMenu, now here is your chance to delete the original.

See September 13, 2004 tfd history below,

• Template:CamMenu - More MNH alternative medicine spamming and an attempt to put in a lever to edit lots of articles at once without it showing in recent changes. Redundant with the category, to say the least - David Gerard 11:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Snowspinner 17:33, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. --Jiang 20:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. CryptoDerk 22:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

The same dumb reason should apply since only the subject matter differs- Spamming and an attempt to put in a lever to edit lots of articles at once without it showing in recent changes. Redundant with the category, to say the least.

To update the argument against this particular template: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes says that this template is a prohibited article series box because the Buddha articles do not form a complete linear series. Snowspinner has this thing about non-complete linear series being used in an article series box. "The importance of the subject matter is not a consideration" according to Snowspinner's Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes guidelines. Sorry, but the Buddha articles simply don't have a natural ordering. -- John Gohde 12:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• See WP:POINT. Keep - David Gerard 04:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Which is to say, Keep until a reason that's not sour grapes is offered. Snowspinner 04:29, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC) Still keep. This comes to the limits of what I can accept as an ordered list, but it's barely within the mark. Snowspinner 23:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What is true for one template is also true for an identical template on another topic, unless of course the first template was deleted for bogus reasons. -- John Gohde 05:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and someone set up a cage match for John and Snowspinner to keep them out of the rest of wikipedia. Night Gyr 09:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. John Gohde's point regarding deletion of the article List of Buddhist topics may have merit (see here for his deletion nomination for that article), but deleting both would be bad form, IMO. The template is the standard unifying structure developed for most religions. And well needed, again IMO. HyperZonk^talk 17:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Originally I wanted to get rid of it too, but thinking about it now I do believe it adds some much needed structure. Buddhism in particular is so varied that this mechanism, despite being a super-kludge, is required to maintain any sort of serious interconnectivity within articles. Related articles is simply too full of holes (and time consuming to re-copy!) in many cases. prat 00:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)