The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 3166-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominated per WP:Avoid instruction creep, I suppose. This seems to be a solution looking for a problem. It is a very complex template which appears to be intended to replace wikicode like [[Thailand|TH]] with ((ISO 3166-1|TH)). This doesn't seem to be a big win to me—the plain wikicode is obvious to any editor, and isn't really significantly different in terms of character count (longer, actually, with this example). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Notice if you trace the links back that it is used within two other templates: "vgrelease tbl" and "vgrelease new". That said, the ((flag)) and its derivatives can be configured to accomplish the same task. SharkD (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per SharkD's response, this may now be a WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not transcluded anywhere in article space. Appears to be a duplication of the table in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 article, but there is no need to also have a version in the template namespace. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unused and apparently unnecessary template. Terraxos (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Happy‑melon 04:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)))))[reply]

Template:C to F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is obsolete since there is ((Convert)). — Bender235 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ((x to y)) templates are preferred by editors who find ((convert)) cumbersome in many situations. No reason to delete a perfectly functional template; it's not like it's not used anywhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense having dozens of templates for °C-to-°F, °F-to-°C, ft-to-m, m-to-ft and so one, if there is ((convert)), which is easy to implement and rich in function. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have dozens of such templates? As far as I can see, for temperatures (in °C & °F) we only have ((convert)), ((C to F)), and ((F to C)). Hardly an overkill.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

category:Conversion_templates. Yes, there's only those for temperatures for C and F, but there's dozens total. --Random832 (contribs) 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's no reason to switch to Template:Convert if it isn't necessary. This template is much better, performance-wise. --- RockMFR 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is better “performance-wise”? How? Is it faster or what? ––Bender235 (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe RockMFR means that this template does not push the template expand limits as much as ((convert)) does. Preprocessor node count for ((convert)) in its simplest form (((Convert|45|C|F)), for example) is 220 vs. ((C to F))'s 50, post-expand include size is 391 vs. 74 bytes and the template argument size is 328 vs. 12 bytes. The difference is not all that critical in many cases, but sometimes, on template-rich pages, every byte counts, so it is good to have another option to fall back on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"another option" can be "45 °C (113 °F)" though - it's not like it's going to change. --Random832 (contribs) 13:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—It is redundant, yes, but Ezhiki does (and RockMFR does, if that what he means) have a point about pushing the template expand limits. So, certainly, on template rich pages ... "rich" meaning "rich" i.e. about four thousand such transclusions ... ((C to F)) will be preferable.

An aside:

((convert|45|C)) is slightly simpler and does slightly better

NewPP limit report

Preprocessor node count: 217/1000000

Post-expand include size: 325/2048000 bytes

Template argument size: 330/2048000 bytes

Expensive parser function count: 0/500

You also make a small saving by specifying the precision ((convert|45|C|0))

NewPP limit report

Preprocessor node count: 161/1000000

Post-expand include size: 147/2048000 bytes

Template argument size: 209/2048000 bytes

Expensive parser function count: 0/500

If, however, the reason for keeping ((C to F)) is to avoid pushing the limits, I'd suggest its code be tightened up. It may be good with respect to limits but it could be much better, remove the option for linking, for example (you won't need that several thousand times on the one page).

As to the other point about ((x to y)) templates' being preferred by editors who find ((convert)) cumbersome in many situations: beauty, it is said, is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps cumbersomeness is on the keyboard of the editor. Is ((convert|45|C)) any more cumbersome than ((C to F|45|precision=0)) (note: most of the ((x to y))s lack ((convert))'s input-sensitive default rounding)? That aside though, no, it's not as if it's not used anywhere: I count 54 transclusions of ((C to F)) as opposed to ((Convert/°C))'s 800+. This surely says something about editor preferences. JIMp _talk·cont 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If I had to choose, I'd pick ((convert)) as the standard. I don't think that it is anymore cumbersome to use than "C to F". I think that "C to F" (and the like) will need to be obseleted one day for the sake for standardization. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((convert)) is the one-stop shop. We should stick to one standardised template. Also, you shouldn't worry about performance - that's the mediawiki developers job, not ours. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 06:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Duplicates functions also possible with some other POV templates and/or References templates, plus a talk page note (and it is better to state the specific reasons in the talk page, where discussion may go on, than in a template), thus it is also almost unused. - Nabla (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conspiracy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Conspiracy-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently the opposition's answer to ((Dismissiveness)), template is POV and is covered entirely by the other templates within Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes‎. Given the POV nature of both this template and Dismissiveness, there is a high probability of abuse. — Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Consp-section (redirect page)
• Template:Contheory-section (redirect page)
• Template:Contheory-theory-section (redirect page)
• Template:Conspiracy-theory (redirect page)
• Template:Consp (redirect page)
• Template:Contheory (redirect page)

• Strong delete All the uses that have arised during this discussion were inadequate :( ..... when I saw the tag on a section of an article that I didn't know anything about, the tag gave me clue at all of how to solve the problems there, due to being inaccurate and having a vague definition. In short, not a good or useful tag. Weak delete due to other more concrete tags being available, mislabelling of stuff that is actually a conspiracy, and the only usage apart from the mislabelling is from a banned user, see below my reply to Jim for details. It could have some legit uses. what cumulus says. Delete See my comment on Template:Dismissiviness below. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template serves a purpose. I use it. Jim (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• *takes a look at User_talk:JimBobUSA and sees the ANI threads on Yamashita's gold* Hum, errrrr, by any chance you are only using it on Yamashita's gold-related stuff? The one that is actually talking about a conspiracy and thus does not deserve this tag on the first place and looks like an example of abuse of this template? The one that already has a ((totally-disputed)) tag at the top? Also, since the dispute is about is about a bad source, wouldn't it be better to use there ((refimprove))? I see that you also used this tag to replace ((POV-section)) [1]. Sorry, I don't agree much with this usage.

I see some other pages where the template is used, but it was added by the banned user Clear Channel Communications[2], Building insulation materials[3] (altought other editors must be agreeing with the tag, because they didn't remove it in 4 months). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of those tags were doing any meaningful work on those articles so I removed them. They didn't really establish what part of the section "sounded" like a conspiracy theory or what could be done to fix it. The other, more specific tags, do this job. Since this tag is written as an accusation -or a meaningless suspicion- its usage would be abusive. If a user sees something they don't agree with in an article, they can easily slap this tag on it and remove all credibility from the text. Since it doesn't address any specific concerns, it would be impossible to identify what could be done to improve it. Again, this was originally for "left wing conspiracies," so it's a highly POV tag and has no useful purpose. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At first, I was leaning toward keeping this one, but now I think this template seems dupicative of both the ((POV)) and ((totally-disputed)) tags. Those tags are more POV-friendly than this one. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A legitimate point, but these don;t quite cover the potential for setting up pages to collect information just to make the other side look bad using their own quotes. I'll allow that there may be other templates that I'm missing. --soulscanner (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It can be used to identify pages whose subject matter and content is inherently POV and obvious products of "axe-grinding" in order to make a group or individual look like a victim or another group or individual. The Quebec-bashing page is an example. In this case, it takes extreme statements by marginal figures in English Canada in order to depict English Canada as having it in for French Canadians. The same would hold for subjects like American Imperialism, Muslim Terror, Israeli agression, Palestinain atrocities, etc. etc. that should be in Arab-Israeli Conflict. Such articles go beyond the pale of simple NPOV or total dispute as they can contain entirely factual information, yet be presented a) with a POV title b) with lopsided material that prejudice any reader with the lack of context. I'd like to see all the other pages that have used this label; if I can see that it is being abused, I'll change my vote. --soulscanner (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea and "axe-grinding" is the term you use to justify the placement of this tag so you can ridicule the authors of any text you disagree with. There is nothing that precludes the use of the ((npov)) or ((totally disputed)) tags, but this tag allows you to rob articles of all credibility. I'm going to remove this tag again from the page on Quebec bashing and I would advise you pick a new tag which better identifies your concerns with that article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need to be rude. I've given a rationale for this template's use, in good faith. Please address these points and engage in discussion instead of accusing me of bad faith. My concerns are duly noted on the discussion page. Until there is a consensus to remove this template, it is a legitimate tag. If the consensus is to remover this template,I'll gladly abide by this. Your point about using tags to deligitimize an article is a good one, but note that any tag can be slapped on any article to deligitimize it, not just the template inquestion. This is not an argument for removing this tag; it is an argument for monitoring its use, which should be done for all tags. --soulscanner (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The category for this template has been deleted. It's currently being used in only one article, Quebec-bashing, by one editor soulscanner, who hasn't elaborated on what he believes makes that article "sound like a conspiracy theory," specifically. Since this template is the equivalent to ((dismissiveness)), also by Piercetheorganist and which has now been deleted, this one has to go to. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On consideration, it does not seem helpful, or likely to build consensus, to call another user's edits a 'conspiracy theory'. While there are articles that suffer from this problem, this template is not the most civil way of dealing with them - we have various better, existing templates for that purpose, which neutrally point out specific problems with an article, and so are less likely to further inflame a dispute. Terraxos (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete Garion96 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dismissiveness (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

POV template (formerly "Right-wing dismissiveness) that is already covered by ((weasel words)), ((pov)), ((original research)) and others. The red versus blue scales are a clear indicator of the original bias and the template has no practical use as a tag. — Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dismissive (redirect)
• Template:Dismiss (redirect)

• Delete The original wording referred to "right-wing dismissiviness" [4] o_O It hasn't changed much since then, and it appears to be the mirrored opposite of "left-wing conspiracy" Template:Conspiracy [5] that is also on TFD right above. It still looks like just a complaint that people are refusing to remove harsh criticism from articles. The creator User:Piercetheorganist has been banned from wikipedia, the template is not in use on any article, and I think that not even the author himself ever used it. Maaaaybe the text in bold could be reworded to a more neutral version. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per those above; POV-pushing, unuseful template. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly-worded, useless template. Use a template that directly addresses a single policy/guideline. --- RockMFR 01:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There is even less of a case for keeping this template than there is for keeping the "Conspiracy" ones shown above.--Eastlaw (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. "Smacks" of dismissiveness? Unuused template, no practical use. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.

Template:Carly Smithson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Reasons are the exact same reasons for the recently deleted Kristy Lee Cook debate. That debate is here. Just way way too early for this. Wait until Carly has had a hit or two. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and relevant discussion. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I redirected both singles per WP:MUSIC (translation: neither single charted), and the Christmas album appears to be a self-release and/or permanent red link. Wait until she's put out more content first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary template for now only two direct wikilinks. Aspects (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus leaning towards keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Authorship claims (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Excessively bitey template that dilutes the privacy policy and uses legal jargon when firm wiki policy will do. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a template which I copied from commons, where it is commonly and usefully employed for people who continually upload obvious copyright violations despite warnings to the contrary. I do not believe that a template warning users for a copyright violation is worthy of deletion. In fact, I have seen this template work well on commons when users realize that lying about copyright can have real world consequences, and promptly admit the violation and ask for deletion. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seldom used, and IMHO it is rather bitey. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Seldom used is not a reason to delete. And yes it's meant to be a shocker to someone who has routinely uploaded copyvios - ideally this is not a first resort template, so WP:BITE doesn't apply. And I consider it far less bitey to warn someone of real world consequences than to just block them outright. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. User warning templates should be created through the standard process. --Selket ^Talk 01:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? A template should be deleted because it doesn't fit into the new system? I don't see any policy or guideline saying that. Does that mean we should delete all the old ones, or that we can't ever copy a new one from commons? Even if it did mean all that, then you could just fix it instead of delete. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems like it would be handy. I don't think the "Mediawiki software..." line is necessary, though. That goes over the line a bit. --- RockMFR 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears useful, and not likely to be used without justification (egregious, repeat copyvios). If it's good enough for commons, why not here? dfg (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is the purpose of this template? If it's to ask the person to prove their authorship or admit they lied, how is it better than taking it to WP:PUI? That will likely get wider input on the situation, and can be used for both one-time and persistent violators. If it's to scare the person with legal crap, are we sure we want to bite people that hard on a suspicion of false claims? Proven false claims can be dealt with using the existing ((uw-copyright)), which can also be used for both one-time and persistent violators. Anomie⚔ 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think it's too 'bitey', as it does not directly accuse the receiver of violating copyright, and in any case would presumably only be used where there is some doubt about a copyright claim. It may not be used often, but it seems like it has some use as a user warning to me - and I don't see why the existence of WP:PUI would make this template redundant, as you could always use the template and refer the user there as well. Terraxos (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If it's good enough for commons it's good enough for here

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WoD Legacies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unhelpful navigational template. There are only two bluelinks in the template, one of which is a redirect. All but one of the other articles have been deleted. Even the bluelink in the title of the template is actually a redirect. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Serves no purpose, given that all but one of the blue links is a redirect, and the rest are all red links that appear to be permanent red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. More suitable for Wikia? dfg (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.