Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/December 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



  • (and redirect at MediaWiki:Biology) - Unused and long-ago replaced with Template:Biology-footer and categories, which are doing a better job than this template. Rather than delete, though, I propose merging histories with the biology-footer, then delete redirects. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)


Template:La Francophonie[edit]






Template:Ugly math[edit]

I don't see the point of slapping this hideous orange box on top of articles that the reader can already tell are full of difficult and abstract math, and the link to a less complex article which it provides could just as easily be handled with an ordinary cross-reference. —No-One Jones 00:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • delete with extreme prejudice - as NOJ said, and POV too. --Whosyourjudas\talk 00:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but it does raise the issue that math articles need a good explanation. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV. If an article is too highbrow, don't tag it -- list it on a relevant Wikiproject (math, crypto, etc.) talk page and/or fix it yourself. CryptoDerk 02:39, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep IF reworded. Although I agree it needs rewording, the issue is quite common, people who write technically at times dont explain well. Maybe a more general "this is technically poorly explained and needs to be rewritten" instead? FT2 21:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and reword as necessary. Linking to a different article is very helpful if the reader will have no chance of understanding the current article. --ᓛᖁ♀ 21:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, preferably with some rewording --TexasDex 22:18, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • What? Even if it would be reworded, its title is still POV. The fact that the article is full of cryptic formulas doesn't mean that the math involved is "ugly". The whole concept of that template must be changed and it would be better if we just delete this one. Grue 07:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely hilarious. Delete. —Ashley Y 15:43, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stating an article needs cleanup is a point of view, as is stating it's not NPOV. These are not valid reasons for deleting those templates. Pure lumps of mathematics are not good encyclopedia copy; check the two articles it's listed on. That kind of stuff needs a honking big orange box. I'd be willing to agree to removing the formula at the top even though I think it adds a certain charm. --fvw* 17:38, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Keep, but reword. I think categorization is good, so why not categorize the "cleanup" messages? Nevertheless, it certainly needs some cleanup itself — when I first saw it I thought it was vandalism! --Pt 23:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I swear, Eequor acts so randomly sometimes. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • keep with super, extreme prejudice I can't begin to count the number of >$100 texts that are poorly written mathematically and I'm talking graduate level texts here. To think wikipedia can't suffer the same fate is putting on rose-colored glasses. I don't agree with the method this template gets the point across, but that can easily be solved by rewriting it. Once again I find wikipedians are quick to delete something that just takes a bit of time to improve. Has nothing to do with highbrow, abstract, or difficult math, just poor authorship. So keep and reword. If this gets deleted I'm putting Template:Attention & Template:Cleanup up for vfd because they are no different than Template:Ugly math in terms of functionality. This template just points out the mathemematics need attention and not the whole article. Cburnett 18:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but saying is not "poorly written", especially if just because you don't get it. Not all math is easy to understand, but rewriting it won't make it better. It's just inherently complex - and not ugly. If you don't feel that math can be beautiful, I'm sorry; but tagging it with this won't help. --Whosyourjudas\talk 20:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't recall ever saying that so stop playing straw man with it like I did. Beauty, confusion, and eloquence are three seperate, distinct descriptions. What you might consider beautiful could be nothing but uneloquent and extremely confusing. The point is that it could be written better to improve the general understanding of what is being conveyed and the eloquence of doing so. Mathematics is entirely about representing ideas through symbols and there's plenty of margin in there to say the same thing in many different ways of varying beauty and eloquence. This template, rewritten, points out that the mathematical symbols on this page could be better explained or rewritten. The goal is not to create pages full of mathematical equations, beautiful or not, in an obfuscated way. This template points out such pages that can be rewritten in more eloquent ways. Anyone who uses it to point out something they don't understand is inappropriately using the template, which is your apparent claim for deleting this template. This is no different than using Template:Attention on a subject you don't understand, but you'ven't put it up for vfd. Cburnett 20:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If you read the template itself - and the name of the template - it says that the math on this page is ugly. Perhaps - perhaps - if it was greatly reworded and renamed I could stand it - but right now the template is not for pages that "can be rewritten". As it stands now it says the math is "ugly" and that the contributor of the template does not understand it - it is "incomprehensible". Why else would it say "if you understand"? - if the contributor understood he would fix it himself, not tag it. The template was made for articles that are beyond the understanding of the reader, not poorly written. They don't need rewriting, they need a primer. My point with my above comment was not to misinterpret anything you said - it was to state that the equation I used is beyond the understanding of some people, but it wouldn't deserve an "ugly math" tag by your interpretation of the tag - it's neither poorly written nor ineloquent, it's just how you write it. --Whosyourjudas\talk 22:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Speculation about the creator and his word choice is really a waste of time. All but two keep votes have explicitly said to reword it, which essentially nullifies your "beef" with it. Cburnett 03:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not speculating, I'm reading what the template says - "ugly", "if you understand", and "incomprehenisble". A simple rewrite won't cut it - the template needs to be moved to a NPOV name and redone from the ground up as a cleanup tag, not as a "oh man I don't get this math so I'm gonna go read a different article" tag. --03:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason for deleting a proper cleanup template. jni 10:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but reword - Same exact reason as Cburnett states. Hoekenheef 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is a horrible flamebait. Its name is a flamebait, too. -- Naive cynic 11:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid cleanup template. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, barring a rewrite from scratch. We already have {{{attention}}} for cases like this, not to mention BJAODN... it might be an idea to start up subject-specific cleanup tags in the same way we have for stubs, though. J.K. 08:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. {{mathattention}} or something might be useful, but not a template the name of which is, as Naive cynic points out, flamebait. —Tkinias 22:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. as others have said, maybe something reworked and renamed would be good, but as it is, its quite POV -- Mairi 04:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The name of the template is not appropriate, and so are its contents. --Bernard Helmstetter 18:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rewrite. OvenFresh 22:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove edit request or Delete. A request for users to edit the page is a clear self-reference that won't make any sense on paper or in mirrors. It's totally okay to point to a more casual treatment, and I appreciate the name as humour, but the request must go, unless this tag will only be used for short cleanup periods. Deco 09:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This title and the attendant description are both somewhat offensive (if accurate) and possibly over-specific. I propose deleting this in favor of Template:cleanup-technical. -- Beland 12:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no attempt has been made by the author or any other editor to first reword this into something less insulting, and second, to move it to a better title. -- Netoholic @ 14:56, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Delete, the other template looks better, but perhaps the background color should be less dark. Category "Incomprehensible pages" should also be deleted. Grue 16:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ruhrjung 21:36, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Delete and ban the troll who created it. Neutralitytalk 22:43, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • whoa - there is already a listing of this template above. please pick one! until the above is cleared, we shouldn't require that the reword be done. give it a week or two, then re-submit if it hasn't been cleaned. --Whosyourjudas\talk 03:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, again, though I prefer the orange background to the current blue. Also, don't list TfD's this close together, wait at least a few months in between, just like VfD. --fvw* 03:56, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've changed it a bit. OvenFresh 00:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete old, dilapidated uses to recreate as an uber-shortcut for Template:delete, in the tradition of Template:db. And Mediawiki:d too. --Whosyourjudas\talk 04:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yay, delete. --fvw* 07:17, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
      • Move to date and delete. Oven Fresh 21:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Deletions are an important form of maintenance, but not important enough to require a one-letter template. The other use is redundant, given we have Template:date. jni 10:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and do what Whosyourjudas said --BesigedB 17:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Whosyourjudas. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


  • Created as a "meta-template" for Template:Otheruses and Template:Otheruses2, but it's not that hard to maintain consistent formatting between the two. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll agree so long as someone does a subst into the two templates - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • They are, nevertheless, not consistent at the moment I write this. Keep and restore. -- Naive cynic 12:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Template:Otheruses-number will also benefit from sharing formatting with Template:Otheruses and Template:Otheruses2. -- Naive cynic 12:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • No, it could not, otheruses-number uses different phrasing altogether. In any case, using "meta-templates" (templates inserted in other templates) is poor design, and doubles the backend processing required to use this template. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
          • Out of curiosity, is such increase of resource usage noticeable? -- Naive cynic 21:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I would guess that it is, consider the hundreds (thousands?) of pages that {(otheruses)} is used on. You might ask User:Jamesday. He's a system administrator for the project. -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
    • Isn't even used right now for "meta-templating" - as Neto said, it's easy to replicate/retain format. delete. --Whosyourjudas\talk 19:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Women[edit]

  • This template is too big and looks hideous when there are multiple boxes such as at Wilma Rudolph. Templates are not replacements for lists just because they look cool. The women here from different years have no close relation among each other to warrant this template. Link to Olympic medalists in athletics (women) (template box duplicated there) and make a category instead. --Jiang 11:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, mainly due to its size. The ones for individual champions (such as Template:Footer Olympic Champions 100 m Women) aren't as bad, but this is too unwieldy. sjorford 17:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to article. The organization is good, and each article transcluding it could be changed to merely link it, alleviating the space issue. Deco 10:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, the information's already in Olympic medalists in athletics (women). Perhaps adding everybody to Category:Olympic Champions 4x100m Women would be the best solution. sjorford 10:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That page is great. Section links are the answer here. Replace transclusions with links like this: [[Olympic medalists in athletics (women)#100 m|Other 100 m women medalists]]. Deco 10:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ill use of template system. This needs to be a category and a list-of article - David Gerard 01:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If this doesn't get converted to category in another week, I'm going to just skip to the deletion part. This is absurd. Snowspinner 01:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've converted it to a category. This may have been a while coming, but I don't think it's fair to threaten deletion of the original template creator's work on those grounds. We are all volunteers, and everything will get done eventually. — MikeX (talk) 07:41, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I get testy around the six month mark, sorry. :) Snowspinner 22:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


  • Oversized monstrosity of a template. Maybe split into 4, by its four current sections, but better off just being left as the category it includes. --Whosyourjudas\talk 03:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep.--Emax 04:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. First preference: Convert to categories, Second preference: Split this into four. Monstrous --Jiang 05:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Categorise Halibutt 07:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I like it - yes, it is big, but not a monstrosity, and I find it useful. Although it could be split into four smaller templates, one for each hetman category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to article. Much too big. Imagine if the text were blown up to a size where people with poor eyesight could actually read it — it would cover pages. The organization is great, but put it at normal size in its own article and link to it to save on real estate. Deco 10:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see any consensus here. Besides, how do you convert to categories these hetmans without their own article? Grue 12:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's already a full list at the bottom of Hetmans of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It needn't be repeated on every article. Michael Z. 20:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)


BJAODN. Vacuum c 17:36, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep in some form, it's genuinely funny on user pages and the like --BesigedB 22:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved page to a subpage of User:SPUI as that user was the only one using it, and it doesn't belong in the mainspace. Vacuum c 00:42, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • Hah, I wasn't even the one to create it. Thanks. --SPUI 00:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've reverted the page move to user's space. That's not proper procedure. Let the vote finish. -- Netoholic @ 01:05, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
    • Then why can VfD's be speedied before the vote has finished? Vacuum c 03:14, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to BJAODN --fvw* 04:01, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • shouldnt you be nominating the other pastel shaded boxes that accompany this one? we dont wan't to shoot the cop when pursued by a gang of bandits. good template. --Jiang 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! Great amusement value! -- Naive cynic 11:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Haha... it's a pastel box against pastel boxes. Move to BJAODN. Deco 11:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • BJAODN!!! - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, of course -- J.K. 11:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Hey, all, it's in a non-article namespace, we can afford to keep jokes there. And this is a really, really, really, good one. (In fact, I'm tempted to create some sock-puppets to I can vote to keep it. Hmm, that's not such a bad idea - it will give me a chance to do some actual article work, instead of all the janitor cruft admins wind up doing! :-) Noel (talk) 21:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not deleted[edit]


  • bizarre list of terrorist-related articles entirely from the point of view of the US. - Xed 18:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see any POV here. Grue 19:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - If you dispute certain items, take it to the talk page. This series box is quite well done. -- Netoholic @ 21:14, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
    • Keep, though I suggest if you find some things objectionable you edit to make the article more NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Is your prob with the contents of the article (which do need improving) or with the way they are linked up with the template - in which case how else would you link them? --JK the unwise 10:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep You can edit the template yourself, you know. Ashibaka tlk 13:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep US-centric? I see no POV issue here. The list looks very good to me. Mikeage 13:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Propose an alternative template if deletion is due. __earth 10:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Even if it's too US-centric, terrorism is a VERY valid issue. --Doctorcherokee 18:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I removed FBI Most wanted and U.S. State Dept. from the template. Hopefully now it is not as unbalanced. Josh 19:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Josh - instead of removing them, should we have a category for "formal classifications" or something? If we have articles about other countries' lists, let's link there, if not, that's still not a US-centric problem with the template, but with the content in general. (Comment by Mikeage.)
        • That might work, although I'm not sure that we have articles about other countries' lists, and I do not know enough about the topic to write any. I'm sure most countries do have some sort of list. Also, one thing that I noticed lacking was that there is no list from Interpol [1] or other international organizations. Josh 22:18, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • By the way, if you would like to discuss this further, please use the template's talk page. I have copied this discussion to there. Josh 02:14, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: This has no chronological order and should really be a footer instead. --Jiang 07:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Entire text of this is {{clear}}''', not a very good use for templates. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:39, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC) **'''Keep''' - Actually a valid formatting use. Creates a line break without a blank line in between as wikisyntax does. Shorter, and easier, than the HTML. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas]] [[User talk:Whosyourjudas|(talk)]] 15:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) **'''Keep''' - I made this template, because it seems more intuitive and easier to remember that writing the whole thing out. <nowiki>If someone wanted to enter the {{pic}} tag or the some other tag, but it was messing up the formatting, it's useful to be able to type {{-}} in front of it. See the template's talk page for more. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you created this on 28 Sep, and right now it's only being used in 8 articles. It's not listed anywhere helpful so that people know it's existence and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax does a much better treatment on image placement. While it is "nifty", it is just not something people will use. I'd be too worried that someone would change it it to use it in my article, and anyone that later comes to edit would see {{-}} and not know intuitively what it is or is doing. Template messages are for presenting text in a consistent format, not for kludging HTML code. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
    • I understand your hesitation Netoholic, but it is kind of useful. Keep --fvw* 07:32, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
    • Would renaming it to Template:Br help? {{br}} is much more intuitive, as it mirrors the HTML code. sjorford 20:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, that just becomes sneakier in my view, as it's not just a br, it's a br clear all. And {{brclearall}} kind of ruins the point. --fvw*
    • Delete. Undocumended. Unneccessarily obfuscates source code just to save a few keystrokes. Stops working when used more than 5 times in one article. -- Naive cynic 21:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • If this were going to be so forever I'd agree with you, but new template loop detection is either in 1.4 or was promised for 1.5, so by the time this has been documented it shouldn't be a problem anymore. --fvw* 20:19, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
        • There we go... Infinite template inclusions are ours to do with as we please now. Thanks Brion! --fvw* 03:25, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
    • now that it exists, i'll use it. Dunc| 23:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • And the best way to use it appears to be {{subst:-}} which is much easier to remember than the br ... etc message. Dunc| 14:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. James F. (talk) 18:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ruhrjung 21:29, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
    • Keep, change to <br style="clear:both"/>. --Pjacobi 18:50, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)


Convert to category and delete. Neutrality/talk 01:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. - I agree with point Fishal makes. It is a quick and easy way to navigate between the different characters. Hoekenheef 20:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I agree with the above comment. Now there are more keep votes than delete votes.
  • Keep, but Rename -- I don't mind the use of the template tools to help better organize a category, but "HSR" is an abbreviation that may cause conflict in the future. I would suggest moving the template to Template:HomestarChar or something that's relatively simple but unique. --Alexwcovington 23:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Alexwcovington. Keep but rename.—Boarder8925 04:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Fishal - it is a very handy way of navigating through the Homestar Runner characters. --[[User:Mr. Strong Bad|Mr. Strong Bad/wp talk | hrwiki talk]] 04:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. OvenFresh 17:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Basically a duplicate of Template:Otheruses, and serves only as m:instruction creep. Its not often that the disambig page lists only other place names. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
    • del.--Jiang
    • Keep! The reason the disambig page doesn't usually just list other place names is that Wikipedia is quite undeveloped on the geography side. Not only in the United States but in Europe, very many places (my estimate is about 10-15%) share their name with others; and almost every famous place does (Paris, Venice, Florence, Moscow, etc.). The overwhelming majority, in turn, of such proper nouns are not the names of people, cars, or other non-places. At any rate, instruction creep is not involved, since the instruction given to the reader is no more detailed or complex than that in the (rather ugly) phrasing of Template:Otheruses. — Bill 02:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


This forms the basis of a particularly condescending and destructive response to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deliberately blanking and protecting undeleted articles is a terrible idea.

  • Delete. ᓛᖁ♀ 21:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Constructive way to make a deleted article's history available for review by non-sysops without clouding the issue of its status. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could be useful. jni 09:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Usage of this template for an image is the same grounds for Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because of non-free license. Images that are put up under a non-free license is grounds for deletion of the image, so it makes sense to delete a template that is bound to an image being under a non-free license. I guess I'm also starting this as consideration of deleting all images that use this template since they presumably are under non-free licenses, which is grounds for delete. Cburnett 19:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Jimbo has stated that all {{permission}} images will eventually be deleted, unless they can be found to be released under a free license. However, he also stated that we should not (yet) go around deleting these images at this time. This temlate allows them to be tagged for the time being. It could be very useful as well. Some people who gave permission to only Wikipedia would be willing to license under the GFDL (rather than see the pictures not used at all) if someone asks. This template puts them all in a category to be easily seen and processed. Quadell (talk) (help) 22:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - as Quadell said. --Whosyourjudas\talk 23:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - as Quadell said. --Evil MonkeyTalk 05:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's take a f'rinstance - a real case. I have a photo of myself on my user page. The person who took the photo has allowed me to use it there, but has not granted permission for others to use it. Therefore the "Permission" template is exactly what I need in those circumstances. I'm sure mine is not an isolated case in this regard. Grutness|hello? 10:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Quadell, et al, Jimbo is not the only one using this template: Image:Bengalgirls.jpg, Image:Lanc.250pix.jpg, Image:Gloster.glad.649pix.jpg, etc. By the rules of wikipedia it says these images should be deleted because they are under a non-free license. Permission only to wikipedia is not a free license, ergo Quadell's point is moot. Keep because it violates the rules???? What's this new madness? Cburnett 17:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And in case you guys didn't look, the first image has been here since July 2002 and the last two have been since April 2003. Clearly, these aren't being used for "the time being" but as permanent licenses. The template is promoting (or, in the least, providing a solution) the use of non-free images. Cburnett 17:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep until there are no images for which it is applicable. -- Cyrius| 06:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 19:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't be ridiculous. You don't delete templates that are very widely used and critical in capturing a class of images that we need to focus on. That would just make it impossible to find them, and would also neglect our responsibility to inform readers that the image is not free. Deco 10:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


This is just needless spam. Maybe it can sit in talk pages, but as it is used now as an article header, it is highly inappropriate. Even on talk pages, I dont see much relevance. See wikipedia:avoid self-references. --Jiang 17:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Most languages either already had or could have a link to xy.wp.o in their external links section, and this template would facilitate keeping a list of all of those (using the category). The only problem, IMHO, is that the author intended for it to be placed at the top of each article, which is definitely spam. I think that we should simply conclude that the notices should be moved off of the tops of pages and keep the template, near the bottom. --Joy [shallot] 21:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur. Maybe the Interwiki box/section could be emphasized instead? --Circeus 16:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • We would need to reformat it into the wikiquote/wiktionary/wikicommons template style. --Jiang
      • Keep if reformatted as per Joy's and Jiang's proposition. -- Naive cynic 08:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep, yes it should be reworded and reformatted. It should also not be placed at the top of each article. (I know I'm guilty of this but will change my ways.) Wikiacc 16:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As an administrator of a minor language wikipedia, I think this tag is useful in encouraging people interested in a language to contribute to, or at least visit, wikis that are often overlooked. QuartierLatin1968 01:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Please keep self references on talk pages. Most people reading the article will be illiterate in the language discussed. The message will be useless for them. They can visit but it will serve them no good. If people know a language, then they will have better places to look (ie the main page) than the language article itself. wikipedia:avoid self-references. --Jiang
  • delete. we don't need a template for everything. if there is a WP in the language treated in the article, place a link under 'external links'. dab () 09:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm in the same position as QuartierLatin1968, but I have to agree with much of what the others have said. Put something explanatory in the External links, or a template near the bottom, because anyone interested enough in the article to be able to do anything useful for the minor WP is likely to read the whole article. Another obvious permissible addition to the "Xy language" article is a standard interwiki link starting with "[[Xy:"; and those of us who are contributing to minority languages can be vigilant in adding interwiki links to all other pages for which our "Xy" has an equivalent. Robin Patterson 10:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't usually participate in these kinds of discussions, but I happen to find this template in particular very useful. Every time I have to research a language, I find it helpful to visit that wiki. I often needto research and get a feel for various languages in my field. I happened to come across this "for deletion" advisory while researching Latin. I did go to that wiki and was glad it existed (I speak several languages so I can understand parts of these wikis). I also think it gives good exposure to smaller wikis. I would think that most ... speakers don't know they have a wiki, judging by the number of articles. QuartieLatin (are you from Montreal too?) and Robin Patterson are obviously literate in the languages discussed. Also, I am assuming that most of you rarely read the entries on language pages. I would ask, as someone who does, and finds this feature very useful, that we keep it.
  • Delete (It appears rather Wikipedicentric to me. Being capable to read and/or speak a set of European languages, I think this could equally well be accomplished by a link under a suitable heading, as for instance External links or See also.) Ruhrjung 21:43, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep but change to style (and placement) of wikiquote/etc. —Tkinias 22:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but reformat to the sister project box style and placement. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 22:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but reformat It's good to promote other language wikis. This is really meta-wiki content. Is it possible to extend the "in other languages" sidebar box in some way, instead of adding a template within the article? Michael Z. 01:33, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Keep but reformat. mark 01:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep, whether reformatted or not. Visiting the given language Wikipedia might raise the interest in someone to spend more in-depth efforts on that language, and I think this is absolutely in accordance with the Wiki objectives. Even if they don't understand it, they may find it appealing to them, or may understand a few words, and they may be encouraged to continue studying. At least at the bottom, but the template should definitely be kept. --Adam78 15:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While it's not directly applicable to the entry, it is useful auxiliary information. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 17:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful for interwiki coordination. Anton Mravcek 22:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since Wikipedias with low amounts of articles are no longer on the other languages section on the Main Page, this template is useful to see if that language has a Wikipedia to contribute to. Norman Rogers\talk 15:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a useful template for language research, etc. I disagree with the spam characterization, because language articles have a higher likelihood of being read by someone who may be interested to read a Wikipedia in the language described in the article.
    --Ryanaxp 22:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's very interesting to read about a little-used language and then see the same language in action. Anyhow, the usual interwiki links are not easy enough to notice; this template sticks out a bit too much... Perhaps it should be flushed to the right? --Pt 00:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Its a good way to get attention of speakers / learners of minority languages
  • Keep, but reformat and have it at the bottom. Even there it violates the no self reference policy, but in the external links that may be acceptable. - Taxman 03:49, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I agree that it should be reformatted like wikiquote and moved to the bottom of articles. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: some people are becoming entirely too anal-retentive about avoiding self-reference, they need to chill and think about it (I've even seen people objecting to references to sister projects like Wikibooks). The fact that a language is prominent enough to have its own specific Wikipedia is a criterion for notability and should therefore be mentioned in the article somewhere. I feel that the appropriate place would be in the External links section. --Phil | Talk 09:29, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm a big devotee of avoid self-reference, but this is an explicitly-permitted exception, because it is contained to a template and so can be removed en masse with a single edit. I was still unconvinced until I read above that real users find it useful. So let's keep it — perhaps dropping the font size a bit would satisfy more people. Deco 09:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)