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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless template created by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. I can see no use for this template other than for use by vandals and to make WP:POINTs. If someone thinks there are too many templates on an article, he or she should remove them him/herself as part of BRD, or should create consensus for the deletion on a talk page. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trying to get rid of too many templates by adding a new template is like everyone saying Shhhhhh to get everyone else to shut up. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Is this vandalism? POINTy edit? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP possibly rethink, reword, and/or amalgamate with simillar/related. i am very much an anti-deletionist, but even i recognize that things need pruning once in a while. stuff tends to build up on here (everywhere!), & it takes forever to clean out even the clearly outdated/obsoleted/invalidated items (unless/until somebody gets fed up enough to automate a particular revision function). we need markers to indicate where the dirt & cobwebs are getting too thick (or even where the well-intentioned, non-obsolescent stuff is piling up). i don't think there was any malicious intent in creating this template, although possibly it was made with an awareness of the inherent irony. IMPROVE rather than remove Lx 121 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template was created by a sockpuppet of the editor Pickbothmanlol, whose talk page shows the creation of several templates that were made for bad-intentioned reasons. I really do think this template is just more of the same. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to ((Too many templates)), which seems to be the same idea but better formatted. Dl2000 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and delete ((Too many templates)) as well, which is thankfully unused). Clearly it is not constructive to highlight such an issue by adding yet another template. It might as well say, "This article has too many templates, but what the heck, here's one more to add to the problem." How many is too many anyway? PC78 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - bad idea for a template. We already have an existing template for this purpose, the above-mentioned ((Too many templates)), but I'm not convinced of its use either. Robofish (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as self-defeating and overly bureaucratic (WP:SOFIXIT, anyone?). This reminds of Wikipedia:Requests for process: we add a notice (((ManyTemplates))) to initiate a process (action by an editor) to address the issue of having too many notices. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:18, 17 March 2009 (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 discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be a POV Fork of the ((Bibleverse)) template (ie. it singles out a specific version). Clinkophonist (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - redundant to existing template. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2009 (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 discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Terrorism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((terrorism)) is the template that should be used. This template violates WP:COATRACK, has serious WP:WTA issues that cannot be resolved by editing. Many if not most of the organizations listed are not considered terrorist by their own side, have significant popular support among their base. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter is in full operation here. Furthermore, some of the designations are arbitrary and incomplete. This template cannot be salvaged by weasel wording the title, it should be redirected to ((terrorism)) and deleted where it is redundant with it. Cerejota (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Violates WP:COATRACK as does the associated History of terrorism article in it's present form. The template has already been added to multiple articles probably in good faith but without discussion/edit summaries. It's presence does not improve compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST in the articles I've looked at and the situation is likely to worsen if the template is added to more articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I made the template, so I'm unsure if that eliminates my weighing in and/or voting. While acknowledging that "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter," there are several excellent histories of terrorism by credible academics. The fact that it's a contentious topic makes it no less relevant, and we shouldn't just give up on the template--let alone the article!--because it's going to be a tough slog of edit wars to get a good finished product. I just imagine that if we had Wikipedia one hundred and fifty years ago, there wouldn't have been an article about evolution because it was too controversial to deal with. Evolution still would've existed, just as terrorism does today, but we would've just turned a blind eye to having an article to it. How much use is an encyclopedia if it shirks from the most hotly debated--and most relevant--issues of its day? Mcenroeucsb (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens is that we already have a very good template ((terrorism)) which addresses the topic with great depth, and furthermore, links to History of terrorism.

This here template is redundant and WP:COATRACKy, as unfortunately is the History of terrorism article itself. However, the article can be salvageable, re-worked, discussed, and since there are plenty of sources, may much better. But the template, well, redundant and coatracky and hence unsalvageable: any good changes would be better incorporated in ((terrorism)), and removing the non-COATRACK stuff would make the template be empty. For me this template fails at the three criteria I have for navigation template: 1) it should be unique 2) should be useful 3) should not advance a position. It fails in all three when faced with ((terrorism)), so it should be deleted or redirected to ((terrorism))--Cerejota (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to evolution sort of illustrates the problem for me. Imagine if someone created a template "Scientific theories accused of violating Abrahamic religious scriptures" in good faith (heh) and added it to various articles like evolution. It would get reverted because it's mere presence advances a POV by focusing on that particular POV both visually and via catagorisation even if that is not the intention. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..and here is an example of what happens when you have a coatrack template. Another coat added to rack to include something that someone has accused of terrorism e.g. IDF followed by a drive by template addition followed by a revert -> edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Any issues as to POV can be made on the template's talk page. Saying that something can not be edited is not a strong reason for deletion. And I do not see "unique" as a specific rationale about templates, I do not see this template as "Advancing a position" and if it is useful, someone will use it. If it is not useful, I trust no one will use it. In any case, the case for deletion is not made. Collect (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, but the "terrorism" template is pretty awful. A section of it is labeled, "Historical," which consists of "Red Terror" and "White Terror." And then it has a state involvement section--which is an important section, but included are just some random countries: US, Russia, Sri Lanka. I know this is off topic, but the point is, if I'm studying terrorism, I would find the "history of terrorism" article much more helpful than the "terrorism" article, and I would find navigating with the "history of terrorism" template much more helpful than the "terrorism" template. Furthermore, while I can understand an argument as to why the template "advances a position," it is hardly redundant with the "terrorism" template. Ergo, I say A)very useful and B)not redundant. But, granted, it would be a battleground for edit wars and people pushing POV. Although I can honestly tell you I didn't create it as a ruse to sneak the word terrorist onto controversial pages. The history of terrorism is an important topic and I think there should be an easy way of navigating the pages related to it--and the "terrorism" template just can't serve that purpose. [Edit note: This is in response to Cerejota's comments, not those made by Collect.]

Mcenroeucsb (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP organizes information in a useful way and isn't coatrack, and certainly not more so than is common on wikipedia lists such as List of war crimes Sherzo (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...but people are already finding it, hanging their favourite coats on it e.g. Sudan military, IDF, Myanmar military and doing templating drive bys. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Sean.hoyland. Right now, an IP is trying to shove the Israel Defense Forces into the template, and the template into the article. -- Nudve (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..yep and he's been blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're argument against keeping it is it might be vandalised? if you follow that logic evolution should go, as should any article on a famous person, or any article mentioned by stephen colbertSherzo (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't made an argument that it will be vandalised nor do I consider adding the IDF as vandalism or indeed any different from adding say Hezbollah. They're just different coats for different perspectives on the same rack of accusations. I have argued that people will hang their favourite coats on it and that those will cause edit wars. That is what happened and will continue to happen because being accused of terrorism is one of the few things that very diverse groups and countries have in common. We aren't dealing with absolutes or right and wrong here. WP:TERRORIST seems pretty clear on this issue. hmmm..colbert..reminds me to put elephant on my watch list. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..and now another coat on the rack, the Kosovo Liberation Army so I guess some Serbian groups will be added by someone shortly Sean.hoyland - talk 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Not POV. Proper categorization. Sorry, the one man's terrorist is one man's freedom fighter is 100% bogus arguement. We are talking about murder of civilians here, not attacks against military targets, at least in most cases. Sposer (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:TERRORIST says "These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article" and "the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation".
To me, the presence of a group's name on the template and the templates presence in the article is a label in the unqualified narrative voice of the article and therefore inherently non-neutral. Use of the weasel word 'accused' doesn't bring it any closer to neutrality and remember "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". Categories are also subject to WP:TERRORIST. Whether you or I think "the one man's terrorist ...etc" argument is bogus isn't relevant here. Think of it the other way around. Imagine an "Accused of State Terrorism" template in the United States or Israel articles for example. Just because there are reliable sources that could provide verifiability for the accusuation it doesn't mean that the template should be there. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP provided that the articles in this box are an indispensable part of the history of terrorism as detailed in reliable sources. As was stated above, no history book on the subject of terrorism discusses people like the Minutemen of the American Revolution, however ALL discuss entities such as Hezbollah. --GHcool (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that it has any bearing on this discussion, but you are incorrect, the main source used in History of terrorism does use the Sons of Liberty as an example. So it is not true, in fact, all sources on the "history of terrorism" I have read (five or six books/scholarly articles - used as reliable sources here for the most part) do mention groups going back to pre-Christian times. The depth of knowledge of the topic you show is discouraging. --Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is patently ridiculous, to wikify violations of WP:WTA into a navbox. I would hope that the admin who comes to eventually close this can see that no amount of keep votes can override policy. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Avoiding the word doesn't mean avoiding the subject. Just like the terrorism article exists, so should the template.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not WP:WTA, in fact I support the ((terrorism)) template and the terrorism article, as evidenced in my nom and in my response above. The issue here is redundancy that leads to WP:COATRACKing: this template doesn't have anything of value to offer above and beyond what the actual article offers, or what ((terrorism)) offers. It has no reason to exist, simly put.--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with either the real terrorism template or the article there, as they cover the subject broadly. List of designated terrorist organizations is also fine, as it puts these groups in the context of what notable nations/groups consider them to be terrorist, not just making a blatant declaration. The same rules that apply to articles apply to templates as well. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it necessarily matters here but for the record, I also have the similar coatrack concerns about the state involvement section of the ((terrorism)) template. Interestingly the template is actually absent from both Iran and state terrorism and United States and state terrorism articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Having thought about it, Delete. Any template like this one will suffer from unavoidable problems with neutrality and original research. While it's not controversial to describe most or all of the groups currently listed as terrorist organisations, there are obvious questions about what groups to include, and how to categorise them; and there are no easy answers. If the template was expanded to include all notable groups that have been accused of terrorism, it would be too long to be manageable. Ultimately, this is one of those subjects that's just better organised with categories than with an infobox. Robofish (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a rather nice template already: ((terrorism)), which evades the problem of listing groups by linking to both History of terrorism and List of designated terrorist organizations, which would provide such a listing. That is the main reason this template should be deleted, as it is redundant with a much better one. --Cerejota (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The groups listed have been called terrorist groups by some nations, or some collections of nations, but that does not mean they are in fact terrorist groups. Some of these groups have also been called resistance organizations by many more countries. The idea that we should be, as Sean said, in the narrative voice of an article, call X group a terrorist group is nonsense. If you are going to base it on one country or some number of countries calling X group a terrorist entity then you are going to have to open it up to most every army in the world. If you want to restrict it to those that the US or the UK or the EU call a terrorist entity than this is the very definition of systematic bias. And why exactly is it titled 'History of Terrorism' when the title is 'Groups Accused of Terrorism'? Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has WP:WTA and WP:NPOV issues. most of the groups listed can be described in a more neutral way as reliable sources have no consensus on them. Gazifikator (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The template attempts to carry out the function of List of designated terrorist organizations. The designation "terrorist" is something that needs context, explanation, and sourcing, and a template simply cannot do that adequately. In addition, there is the problem of inclusion and exclusion of groups: including all groups accused of engaging in terrorism would make the template so long as to be unusable; failing to include all such groups raises NPOV issues. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per everybody for keep.--mbz1 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the impossibility of precisely defining who is and isn't a terrorist is too problematic. CopaceticThought (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too problematic to define which could lead to someone's POV. ((terrorism)) is a much better template. Garion96 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Terrorism is a notable concept with a lengthy history. WP:WTA is a highly problematic guideline, as the current version does not enjoy (and never did) consensus support, but there is no consensus to overturn. Ray^Talk 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There can be a template which allows easy navigation between articles of interest in the history of terrorism. As a result, I have drastically trimmed this template down, removing a laundry list of organisations, and replacing them with terrorism concepts which are significant in the history of terrorism. Discussion initiated at Template_talk:History_of_Terrorism#radical_rewrite. This template should be removed from every article which is not listed on the template, such as IRA which was not listed on the template before I trimmed it down. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A vast improvement. Could this be worked into an existing template though, or would that be making those too lengthy? Tarc (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a slight preference to keeping this navbox distinct from others, but I wouldnt object to it being merged into another template if someone was feeling bold. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And your edits have been reverted. So the issues still remain. Furthermore, even as trimmed, it is redundant with ((terrorism)) (ie, it can easily be merged into it), so it should still be deleted.--Cerejota (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; like Jayvdb sez, author of this template reverts template into 'History of some of the major groups accused of terrorism' rather than an NPOV "History of terrorism" template. Btw, similar happens on 'History of terrorism' entry; if we could fix that, perhaps organized by chronology and region rather than by group, then we could eventually make a better template.Haberstr (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the author of this template appears intent on this template being "Groups Accused of Terrorism" rather than a useful "History of Terrorism" navbox. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template violates NPOV and I don't see any way how to improve it. For example, it links Hamas but in the article in the leading paragraph we read "Hamas is an Islamic Palestinian socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Since June 2007, Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories." Nothing about terrorism. It is a ruling force in the Palestinian Territories. Moreover, the whole selection of articles to put together seems problematic. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (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 discussion was withdrawn Consensus among established editors and new wikipedians seems to be strong to keep the templates around, and I won't stand in the way. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Milky Way Gate Address (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also nominated are:

Template:Pegasus Gate Address (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

(Already brought up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stargate#Gate_address_templates a week ago.) These templates display Stargate symbols as a planet's in-universe location that is never mentioned in dialog (except maybe two of 300+ episodes). While I can see a reasonable usefulness for naming planets and planet designations (e.g. P4X-639) in plot summaries, the symbol-addresses rarely if ever have any plot impact and aren't known to anyone but the most fanatic fans (WP:UNDUE, WP:FANCRUFT). The symbol addresses are hard to verify unless you know the episode they appear in and pay attention with eagle eyes (possibly WP:V issues). This is more a TFD nomination for irrelevance than for feared harm to the project. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the template is used in plot summaries as a way to indicate a plot element. It makes our coverage of the topic better, which is a prime criteria. If there are WP:V issues, they should be adressed on an article by article basis, not by deletion of the template - the opposing position, that when WP:V is available there is no way to express this code is as valid (and as verifiable) as yours.--Cerejota (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Don't delete this valuable piece of work ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krinkle (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The information makes sense within the context of an encyclopedia. Perhaps an asterisk could accompany each instance of a symbol address, and a note beneath the section on its in-universe status... Remember that the Stargate universe is one of the strongest aspects of pop culture to have explored the unconventional Atlantis theories in Egyptology. As the real proponents of these concepts are largely disregarded (perhaps rightly so), its impact on pop culture is the largest weight it carries at all. Besides, it can only do good. Perhaps the gate addresses will spark some reader's interest in hieroglyphics. Leave it in.Yeahjesse (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see any valid reason for removing it. It doesn't make the articles more confusing, it adds additional valuable information. It doesn't have to have "plot impact" to be important to the viewer. The symbols match the designation to the signs on the stargate, which helps clarify what is going on in the process. -Jaardon (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These symbols are an important element to the show. To remove them would take away from their importance. The information does not make the article more confusing in any sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.51.56 (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In far more than 2 episodes the address of a planet is quite important to the plot. The first season hinged on the discovery of an artifact that held hundreds of addresses. "The Fifth Race" introduces a an 8 character address, and many new addresses, both of which are quite important. "Lost City" parts 1 and 2 depend on deciphering a specific address from O'Neill. I can go on, but the point is made. No reason to delete. burnte (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP or millions of stargate fans will rain curses on all of us. :P You don't have to be a fan, or close follower, of the series to understand how such templates can be useful for organizing the information, to people who are interested in it (and there are endless precedents of using other obscure, topic-specific organizing criteria on here). wikip exists to serve everybody. ideally we should provide all information about everything, neatly organized, accurate, fully referenced, & proofread. ...that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, but unless wikip develops a clearly established policy of say (for example): moving this kind of stuff stuff over to wikia, & into topic-specific wiki's, & cross linking with it there; it belongs on wikip. Lx 121 (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2009 (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 discussion was delete Criteria is extremely vague. Will engage a bot on this one. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IT giants (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too broad a category. Articles linked to are so different 95% of the links in it have no relevance for any individual article this template appears on. "IT giants" is apparently just a way to say "random companies we can think of that involve a computer or electronics somewhere", which is completely pointless. The subsections in here could be broken down into 13 different templates and maybe be useful. Was nominated previously, but way back in 2006 and with no consensus, so a relisting is long overdue. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a WP:COATRACK with no real value or usefulness. If there where an article about IT giants maybe it could exists, otherwise it is a capricious, misleading template. However, if an objective criteria is developed (ie "IT business with more than 10,000 employees"), it could make a great category, I see value in categorizing big companies in a given field together. Not templates, but categories.--Cerejota (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IT giants, the template's name, is irrelevant, as it is invisible; its title (what is visible) refers to information technology, on which there is of course an article. The editors have done a good job of consensus on what constitutes "major" and what does not. And I don't understand the reference to WP:COATRACK, which requires bias; where exactly is the bias here? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP we already went through this discussion once before (see the template's talk page). I agree the defining terms of the template could be improved, & should be. Personally, I think the whole templating process on wiki could be improved & should be, in a very large number of ways. But, simply dropping this template is not a reasonable solution. FIX IT - if it gets dropped, somebody is just going to make something simillar to replace it with, & we'll be back where we started, again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - bad idea for a template. Apart from the non-neutral name and vague (nonexistent?) inclusion criteria, it includes far too many articles - it's difficult to imagine why someone would want to navigate from most of these articles to each other. This is the sort of thing that's better covered by a category, or not done at all - why should we be singling out 'IT Giants' in a template, anyway? Robofish (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An already-huge navbox with a virtually unlimited potential to grow due to poorly defined scope. I can't see this as being useful to anyone. You could split up each grouping into its own navbox, which WOULD make sense, and I'm sure some already exist as such. Otherwise I'd like to hear why TSMC is being linked to Valve Corporation. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• REALLY STRONG DELETE Per above --99.175.92.178 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It would benefit from agreement on listing criteria, but it has potential to become an easy way to navigate around the IT industry: any typical PC or mobile phone user uses technology and services from all the sub-sectors listed. Examples of nav boxes with similar broad scope include Template:Dow Jones Industrial Average companies. Lists that could be used as a model for inclusion criteria are List of wealthiest charitable foundations (a featured list), List of companies by revenue, and List of corporations by market capitalization. I would to split it into three: Computer hardware giants, software giants and IT services giants, but until that would happen, this is not so bad.--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It is POV to decide who comes on the template plus has an unlimited potential to grow. Garion96 (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, and we don't really want to be telling people what browser to use Stifle (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep We already have a number of templates saying the user uses Internet Explorer. This is barely any different, except in size. Ought we delete Template:User browser:Other ? See also Template:TwoColumnTOC etc. Collect (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Stifle, we aren't in the business of telling our readers to go use a different browser. We already have "this user uses Firefox" userboxes (see for example ((User firefox))) and besides that's not what this template is about. BryanG (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This template seems to be designed for articles, but the wiki markup is designed to work in all (major) browsers and most articles don't have any complicated layouts anyway. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep at the present state of the art somethings will; work better in firefox. As most users will now known about different browsers and many will have more than one avai available, it's good to be informed,.DGG (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No thanks. It gives the wrong signal and, in most cases, it'd have to be "Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome, IE8 or another recent browser" anyways. —Ms2ger (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unnecessary. --roger6106 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP & use carefully, or work out a template to cover the issue more broadly. i.e,: define what the issues are with the differing functionality in different webbrowsers, & list them as fits each page (including perhaps, cellphone/portable wireless devices, text only, & disability-assist stuff, etc.), or define the underlying problems with pages, & identify what's needed to optimize the use of each page. ...yeah, that's a lot on work, i know. but until we get something like that, we should keep this template & use as needed. there IS a difference between the experiences on different webbrowsers (different operating systems, etc. ), & microsoft in particular isn't very supportive of open standards. maybe we should glom this issue together with all related considerations; like getting .ogg files & other open source/open standard formats to work properly, for everybody, BY DEFAULT. or the endless issues with character encoding & all the different fonts needed, in all the different alphabets, in all the different languages. call it something like WP: Universal Compatibility ...or do we already have that? lol Lx 121 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages which use foreign characters often have a small warning infobox in the top corner (see Arabic language, for example.). Bettia ^{it's a puppet!} 16:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This could also be considered POV. Also there is only one formatting issue that I have found where a style works in Firefox but not IE, and that is...

  -moz-column-count:2;column-count:2;

  Other than that, there should be no major cross browser issues. We don't want any IE people getting up in arms over an article supposedly written for Firefox only now. There could be a new notice saying something like "This article appears to be browser specific (name of browser), please edit it to make this article viewable in all browsers." LA (T) @ 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Urgh. The whole reason for spending ten years swimming against a strong current was to rid the world of "this page best viewed in..." banners. It may be true that a page looks better in X browser, but we shouldn't be encouraging editors to think that they can optimise for one and then stick a disclaimer up. Let's nip this in the bud while it's unused. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from a few very minor differences (for example, Firefox is able to render reflists in more than one column where IE cannot), Wikipedia pages appear virtually identical whatever browser you use (I regularly use IE, Firefox and Opera). There's simply no need for this template. Bettia ^{it's a puppet!} 16:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2009 (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 discussion was Keep. Happy‑melon 16:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NIFL Arenas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The league this template represents is now defunct, so linking the "current" arenas isn't exactly possible, and now only provides clutter. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep = I changed "current" to "former", dealing with that issue, and if historic things are clutter then we really do need to get rid of all these articles about Sparta and tyrannosaurs and such.  :) The template appears to be useful, and aids in navigation. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2009 (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 discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A(Y)ref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, designed for use in articles, is not used in article namespace. Would've speedied but since I'm not sure what this template actually does I don't know if it meets CSD T3 or not. ~EdGl (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The template wikilinks references with a piped link to PAGE TITLE (References), presumably so that they could be removed from articles and moved to "References" pages. If used in the article Wikipedia, for instance, the template would wikilink any reference on which it is used with a piped link to Wikipedia (References). This contravenes common Wikipedia practice (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) to present references within the articles in which they are used. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For background, see Talk:Race and intelligence (References)#New fancy system and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history). Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We certainly don't want to encourage hiding references in another article. —Ms2ger (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (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 discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canceled project airport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one page, makes little sense - there isn't generally much new information about cancelled projects. Tango (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because the issue tackled by template seems to be too narrow to justify its existence. I write "seems to be" because I am not entirely sure what "canceled new airport" means. Does it refer to an operational airport that was recently closed, an airport construction project that was recently cancelled or a recently-constructed airport that was closed? Perhaps WikiProject Airports could shed more light on the matter, but I really don't see the need for the template. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Judging by the one article it is use on, it means a project to build a new airport than was cancelled. I think the article had a standard "planned project" template on it while it was planned, it was then cancelled and this new template was created to replace the template was on it. The template should just have been removed. --Tango (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete, as per Black Falcon. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't subst. I don't see any need for this template. Don't we have other "Canceled" templates that already say the same thing? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First a tag for future, now one for canceled. Next one will be a standard tag for finished? Garion96 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2009 (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.