Skip to table of contents  · Skip to current discussions  · Purge this page

Shortcut: WP:TFD

Deletion discussions Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review Deletion policy Process – log – tools Guide – Admin guide

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

How to use this page

What not to propose for deletion here

The majority of pages in the Template: namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

• Speedy deletion candidates

  If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.

• Stub templates

  Should be listed at Stub types for deletion.

• Policy or guideline templates

  (that is, templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, like the CSD templates) cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.

• Userboxes

  Should be listed at MfD, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

• Template redirects

  Redirects for deletion.

• Renaming a template

  Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

• The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
• The template is redundant to another better-designed template
• The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
• The template violates some other key policy such as NPOV or CIVIL

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process (replace TemplateName, not including the namespace identifier "Template:", with the name of the template to be deleted):

It is generally considered civil to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to vote "keep until orphaned" or similar. Please instead phrase it as "delete" or "delete after orphaning".

Administrators: please the the Administrator instructions.

Current discussions

September 5

Template:PeerNavbox

Template:PeerNavbox (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

No longer in use, doesn't seem to have been used in over 2 years. All uses have been replaced with standard templates as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates. Bazj (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bobby Hamilton Racing-Virginia

Template:Bobby Hamilton Racing-Virginia (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

nn Template. Links do not go to pages that are not already linked on the main article page, many are red links. D-Day (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Amanda Bynes

Template:Amanda Bynes (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Consensus was determined quite some time ago that templates that only contain actor roles weren't acceptable per determination of WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. This template only appears on the Amanda Bynes article, which already contains the recommented filmography table. This template serves no navigation purpose that isn't already offered on the article page and is redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete as per above Mspraveen (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ram Charan Teja

Template:Ram Charan Teja (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Consensus was determined quite some time ago that templates that only contain actor roles weren't acceptable per determination of WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. This template only appears on the Ram Charan Teja article, which already contains the recommended filmography table. Further, the template contains one film, as does the filmography. This template serves no navigation purpose that isn't already offered on the article page and is redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete as per above. Mspraveen (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Keisha Castle-Hughes

Template:Keisha Castle-Hughes (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Consensus was determined quite some time ago that templates that only contain actor roles weren't acceptable per determination of WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. This template only appears on the Keisha Castle-Hughes article, which already contains the recommended filmography table. This template serves no navigation purpose that isn't already offered on the article page and is redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete as per above Mspraveen (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Succession box three to three

Template:Succession box three to three (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

No longer in use. All uses have been replaced with standard templates as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates. Bazj (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wikinfo

Template:Wikinfo (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Not in use, not likely to be in use. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

September 4

Template:Obsoleteinfo

Template:Obsoleteinfo (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

User probably overlooked {{Out of date}}. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:S-ecc

Template:S-ecc (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

No longer in use. Longstanding REDIR that has been replaced in all articles as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates#Templates no longer in use. Bazj (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Consensus has been reached to delete. Replacement template has proved more useful. This has served its use and is no longer necessary. Thanks! Gnowor (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete...Delete!....DELETE I SAY - This template was "replaced" so long ago, that I was infuriated to find it still in such high use a while back. Thank God (yes, a pun) that the conversion to "s-rel" is complete. Once more delete, I say, and make if snappy!
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: I appear to have been tricked into rendering this template unused, without realising its fate was deletion. Now that I have come this far, the only sensible recourse would be to bury the evidence. So delete as an unused, deprecated template that's use was not going to waiver without intervention. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry dispute templates

Template:Disputed diagram (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Low quality chem (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Disputed chem (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Last two unused, first on a hnadful of images, where it would be as well or better served by {{disputed}} and a mention on the appropriate project page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30 4 September 2008 (GMT).

Template:GMA Network Media Franchised Shows

Template:GMA Network Media Franchised Shows (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Templates about related TV programs such as TV programs aired at the same time, same genre, same format, same TV season, but this? Um, no. –Howard the Duck 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:St. Louis Rams seasons

Template:St. Louis Rams seasons (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The information on this template is already found on {{St. Louis Rams}}. I suggest this templated deleted and merged with the other template.--Pinkkeith (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:C.S. Senator box

Template:C.S. Senator box (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

No longer used, replaced by standard templates as per WP:SBS/T. Bazj (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Creator & sole editor has been blocked indefinitely. Can't solicit his input. Bazj (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this template claimed to present the Senator's "alongside" colleagues, but didn't. The replacement templates do. Bazj (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Unnecessary branch template of the slowly-growing-defunct "U.S. Senator" templates. This needs to be removed.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Generic rationale

Template:Generic rationale (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Non-free rationales are supposed to be specific to each use. This template has lots of text but doesn't say anything useful. While it's not transcluded anywhere, it may exist on pages by substitution. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - not designed to be transcluded, extensively used, sometimes a useful start to writing a more detailed rationale. PhilKnight (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A generic rationale is patently invalid, and this template's content and substitution lend it to egregious misuse to provide any and all copyrighted "one of those rationale thingies". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I first thought this was only used as a building block for deriving other, more specific rationales from it. But the documentation implies one could use it directly on an image page and get a valid rationale. That is ludicrous, and will only encourage more damage through meaningless boilerplate text. What makes it worse is that it's subst'ed and thus we lose the chance of keeping track how it's (ab-)used. We must educate uploaders that writing rationales has far less to do with getting certain formalities right and using the right templates and ticking off this or that formal point. Writing a rationale, a real rationale, is about content. It is at the same time much simpler and much more demanding. Let them just tell us, in very simple words:
  1. What do you want this particular image for in this particular article? (Say what exactly this image shows; if it's used to illustrate some point say exactly what that point is.)
  2. Why do you need an image and can't just describe the topic with plain text?
  3. Why do you need this particular image and couldn't use a free one?
  4. In what way is our use of the image different from what its owner would use it for, and not in competition with that?

  Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Emulator fur

Template:Emulator fur (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Non-free use rationales are supposed to be specific to each use. This template is just dropped on emulator screenshots. Additionally, it makes presumptions about the source that are unlikely to be accurate. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons analogous to those of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21#Template:Logo fur and just about every other boilerplate FUR template. How is {{emulator fur}} any less specific than, say, {{logo fur}}? Or do {{logo fur}} and friends deserve to be renominated for deletion? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to nominate all forty of them at once. The logo one actually applies to the majority of images on which it is used, which puts it in the minority. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Then that means the template or its uses need to be improved, not deleted. Would you please show examples of image description pages that use this template correctly and incorrectly so that I can better understand what you find unspecific about this template? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The scope of this particular template is so limited that I don't really know whethere there's much of a need for it. If it were well written and used responsibly, and the set of situations to which it applies is reasonably uniform, it might be okay. But the boilerplate default text it shows is harmful and needs to be changed. If you upload something, you can't claim the source is "presumably" this or that. I mean, come on, you are uploading, you must know where you got it. And the "purpose" is a desaster. "to illustrate that the emulator is capable of emulating this game" never, ever, makes for a valid rationale. Because to substantiate that fact, you don't need an image, you need a sourced statement in text and that's it. We don't use non-free images as evidence for statements of fact. That statement spells the death sentence for every image page it stands on, marking it for deletion under NFCC#1, replaceability with text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Frequent flyer programs

Template:Frequent flyer programs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This list is very incomplete, but the truth is that since the majority of airlines have frequent flyer programs, this list might as well be a list of airlines. Most of the links redirect to the parent airline; AAdvantage, Asia Miles, SkyMiles, Mileage Plus. Other major programs not in the template would be the same way (WorldPerks to Northwest Airlines), OnePass to Continental Airlines, Dividend Miles to US Airways). The remaining programs are notable of separate articles insofar as they are either combined frequent flyer programs for multiple airlines (EuroBonus, Miles & More), or have evolved to being much broader customer loyalty programs (such as Aeroplan and Air Miles). It's not worth it to have a template just for special case programs, and even if it were, it shouldn't just be called "frequent flyer programs". -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created List of frequent flyer programs, and if nothing else, looking at that list (which is woefully incomplete) should demonstrate that any such comprehensive template would be far too large for transclusion. At the same time, I don't think it doesn't make sense to create numerous templates and a category (see). I still maintain that this template should be deleted. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 07:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also made some small changes to the main article frequent flyer program, but there's a LOT of work to be done. So much of the information lacks references. So far all I've done is some minor typo fixes and formatting. The article really needs an overhaul. I'm going to ask for some assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral/Comment: Hmm. That all makes sense, but I have to ask myself, "but does this navbox actually aid in navigation". At first I'm not sure, so I fall back on my default pair of magical glasses for cases like this. Through these glasses I see Wikipedia as something I can use to write my 7th grade essay, which happens to be about insert topic here (FF programs in this case), which is due next Tuesday. I'm a digital kid, and don't really know how to use a library very well; Google and Wikipedia are it for me. I ask mom and she tells me she's in some FF program. I find it here. Then I'm stuck. "Now what?" Holy crap! There's box at the bottom of the page that links to every FF program there is (or not in this case, but enough to be helpful to me). And yes it turns out most of them are just links to airlines, but they do a) mention and even go into some details about those airlines' programs, and b) provide links to the companies' web sites where I can find more info, and pretty soon I have enough material for an A+ paper on the topic. Delete this template and I don't have that. Then again maybe this template's deficiencies are too severe. Not casting a !vote either way, really, just saying: pick someone else's eyes to look through from time to time, and hidden encyclopedic value may appear. It may turn out to be minimal value, undermined by a shoddy tool, or it may be a diamond in the rough. — SMcCandlish talk cont ‹(-¿-)› 12:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• While schools should still seek to teach children how to do real research, starting in elementary school, your example still has some merit, but a Google search for "frequent flyer programs" still turns up the main article (Frequent flyer programs) first. Now looking at that article, I think I'm going to seek to improve it, and also create "List of frequent flyer programs". I feel those two actions would serve Wikipedia much better than this template ever could. To improve this template would require a ton of links that were redirects, and it would also need to include information regarding the major airline alliances. Let me make those improvements. I just don't see this template as useful; were it complete, it would be too large to be useful. I think smaller, more focused templates are the way to go; see Template:Airline alliances and the templates for the various alliances (Template:Oneworld, Template:SkyTeam, Template:Star Alliance). -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Gunpowder plotters

Template:Gunpowder plotters (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This template is used to substitute an image map for what looks like an ordinary image, thus bypassing the accustomed link to the image description page. I believe this is a violation of the image use policy, which relies on the image description page for copyright information (even for a public domain image like this one). I'm aware that there are similar templates used for maps, but I think this situation is quite different and deserves a full debate. Chick Bowen 02:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• strong keep - I have added a message to all the articles that reminds those who cannot find the image button. Chick Bowen is not the first to not find the button so I can see why he might have felt that there was no easy route to the copyright message - so this is a good addition. I had a similar issue with one on Mount Everest (and other key mountains in the himalayas). I initially came across this technique where it is used on The Eye as a featured picture and as a technique for non-map on number of GAs and feature articles. A debate will be good although why we have to have a deletion request is odd. Is there not a better place to have this debate? Can I point out that removing the template will not achieve anything. The imagemaps will remain they don't need a template. Is this thought through? Victuallers (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This debate is intended to be on the image map--I'm holding it at TfD because it has to be held somewhere, but I expect that a consensus for deletion would also apply to the map itself. You are certainly right, though, that there's nothing all that unique about this particular image map, and that a larger debate needs to be held. I would still like this debate to proceed, however, and consider the merits of this template, because it is rather further from the original concept of a map than the others. Chick Bowen 16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised. Have you looked at the definition of image map on Wikipedia? I hadn't... I was genuinely surprised to find an example of another of "my" imagemaps used as the definition of what one is. The word map in image map is not about geography ... it has a meaning in mathematics. Maybe we should hold the debate at image map's talk page? Victuallers (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Image maps. I'd be pleased if you'd weigh in, and I'll link to it from a few relevant places, including the Village Post; if you could as well that would be great. I really don't have a clear sense of the general consensus about this, and I think it would be useful to have one. Chick Bowen 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The image itself is useful, though I can't quite see why it is classed as a template, nor can I find a link to the original image, where I was hoping to see if the description also needed correcting (it is an engraving not a "sketch"). But it should survive in some form. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Simpsonsportalepisode date

Template:Simpsonsportalepisode date (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Obsolete template - Portal:The Simpsons now includes "Selected content" sections permanently, not for a selected period of time - and they rotate randomly through. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Should be deleted if obsolete and is "no longer wanted". --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

September 3

IUCN Red List templates

Template:Red List Albania (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Red List Algeria (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Red List Belgium (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Red List Bulgaria (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Red List Canada (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Red List China (|talk|history|