Sometimes, we want to delete things in the Template namespace. This is particularly used for article series boxes that are either not noteworthy, are redundant with categories, or which have simply been orphaned. For guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable article series box, see Ireland Information Guide:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates should be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.

Note that, in addition to voting "Keep" or "Delete," a valid vote on this page is "Convert to category." In this case, all pages with the template should be added to an appropriately named category, and the template should be deleted.

To list a template on this page, add it to the list below under the appropriate date. Link to it as [[Template:Insert template here]] instead of as {{Insert template here}}. When listing a template on this page, add {{tfd}} to the top of the template. This will add the following text to the template:

Template:Tfd

When adding this message to templates that are in the form of series boxes, the message should be placed inside the box, to make it clear what is being proposed for deletion. When being added to templates which have already been blanked, and are just sitting around as blanks, the message should be added to the template talk page. Again, do not blank templates to list them here - this is just if the template is already blank when you are listing it.

Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objects to its deletion have been raised. Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright problems -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- categories -- templates

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log

Listings

Please put new listings at the bottom of the page.

August 21

Template:CamBottom

I blanked this on 19 July as intrinsically POV (see talk). Not a squeak of protest. - David Gerard 17:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Fought this from the beginning. Note that its initiator is banned at present. JFW | T@lk 13:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. User:Bkonrad/sig 13:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. JamesMLane 12:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:CamTiny

This is redundant with the category and basically an attempt to spam CAM topics across the medical articles. It's really not needed. I didn't put {{tfd}} on the template because it is in fact quite tiny - David Gerard 17:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Was a replacement for {{CamBotton}} when too many people protested insertion of that box on pages. Note that its initiator is banned at present. JFW | T@lk 13:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. User:Bkonrad/sig 13:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. JamesMLane 12:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 23

Template:Quotable

Same as Template:Opentask. Linked to from Ireland Information Guide:Quote which also seems to not be in use. Angela. 19:19, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

By threatening deletion, I have been prompted to act on it. Its cases like this that make deletionists rejoice. ;) Im filling it in a bit that some may see its merits and maybe run with it. But, if its deleted, it might also be resurrected: if a good idea before its time becomes a good idea whos time has come. No? -SV 03:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Couldn't such things just go on goings-on? Angela." Yes, if Goings on were a template of current issues, like open tasks... SV 03:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So if part of goings-on was in a template like Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Angela/Sandbox&oldid=5585843 this (http://en.Ireland), there would be no need for this separate "quotable" page? Angela. 19:24, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think so. Goings on is more general and essential - it could also incorporate interesting quotes too, but I agree with starting with the essentials and growing from there if needed. -SV 17:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 29

Template:InsanelyDisputed, Template:Insane, and Category:Sanity disputes

• Note: this was incorrectly listed (and partially deleted) on VFD because I didn't know TFD existed — my apologies. Thanks to Neutrality for moving it to the correct location. • Benc • 04:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Cute and funny little template, but not appropriate. It's too enticing to use in the article namespace; it's like a banana cream pie sitting on a table, begging to be picked up and thrown in someone's face. (Maybe you don't get these urges, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.) When this template finds its way onto actual articles (which it has), it's tantamount to leaving a big, red YOU'RE AN IDIOT on the author's user page. This is not a good way to foster WikiLove, so let's delete this template, please. • Benc • 06:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Co-listing: Template:InsanelyDisputed and Category:Sanity disputes. These are equally inappropriate for the same reason as above; if the consensus is to delete Template:Insane, the other two should be deleted, too. • Benc • 06:10, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep all. Useful templates. RickK 06:18, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. There are better and more accurate terms than "insane" to describe bad articles. DannyBoy | Talk 06:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "insane" is merely the name; look at the template, and you'll realize that it merely states "The sanity of this article is disputed". --Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • An article which has no sanity is an insane article. Besides, is it really up to the wiki users to determine whether someone or their writing is "sane," when it's the factual accuracy that counts? DannyBoy | Talk
• Keep. Ambi 06:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. These are useful templates, in the case of writings of questionable sanity that aren't actually patent nonsense (e.g. the Unibomber manifesto). --Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • But in the case of truly insane people about whom a Ireland Information Guide article is necessary, there is no need for the template if (as in the case of the Unabomber) there is no dispute! He is clearly insane - so just say that in the article; no template necessary. In any case, it says "sanity of this article," not "sanity of the person concerned in this article." DannyBoy | Talk 14:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A touch of genius and a wonderful product of original research for trigger-happy censors. Very constructive and positive, as it could be applied to any useful and interesting article --Pgreenfinch 09:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment, a couple more points to consider. First, there's nothing the {{insane}} template does that {{vfd}} does not already do better, minus the insult. Any article that's patent nonsense will already be listed on VfD. Who would add a {{insane}} tag but not a {{vfd}} tag? Second, the insane tag is inherently insulting, though it attempts to wriggle out of it by the use of a weasel term. Would you honestly not take the least bit of offense if someone told you "whether or not your style of prose smells like a steaming pile of rhinoceros dung is disputed"? And if you question someone's sanity, can you honestly expect him to not get offended? Now, POV is fine, outside of the article namespace. Many pages on VfD fully deserve to be labeled "patent nonsense" here on VfD, complete with snarky commentary. However, the article itself is not the place for it. For borderline cases, the use of the {{insane}} tag is an excellent way to insult the author(s), directly on the page they're trying to defend, all the while feigning NPOV. I've never given nor received an {{insane}} tag, but whenever I see it, I hear the sound of common courtesy being flushed down the toilet. • Benc • 09:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Andris 09:49, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC) (vote changed to delete 14:34, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC))
  • To explain my vote, I have not seen this template being used in an offensive way. When it was created, it was put on Lucky OS that was a clear joke article (and which is now in BJAODN). AFAIK, that was the only instance when it has been used to a actual article. There is no big harm if this goes, but since it has not been used offensively, I will keep my "keep" vote. Andris 12:42, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • You mean the admin who used it against one of my articles did it unoffensively as a joke? Exactly what I understood, and I congratulate sincerely the guy for all the fun. You might have noticed that it was why I supported the idea in my first comment. If I support delete now, it is that I have that impression that this bit of humor might have become rather dull, stale and boring, with a very short shelf life, so let us better move to more entertaining pieces ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 13:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Which article of yours? I may change my vote to "delete". Andris 13:30, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Article European Union Olympic medals count for 2004, revision 20:03. 17 Aug 2004 --Pgreenfinch 14:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this joke is getting out of the hand, then. Delete, before this template spreads around Ireland Information Guide more. Andris 14:34, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the tag: I'm nearly going to abstain. I agree that (insane) can be an insult, but it seems to me that you're really aiming at the behavior of our fellow Ireland Information Guide users rather than the template. After all, the template can fade away and yet have the same words be put on by any editor. Could the (insane)template be used as a flag for future editing? Could it be used to tell future readers that this article really, really needs an NPOV editor? I'm not sure that deleting the template will change whatever insulting goes on, nor that the template is always used as an insult. Geogre 12:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • My change to abstaining is because it is/was a joke almost exclusively used on user pages, and the fans of the tag can create it as a copy-paste box to add for themselves, much as folks do with favored barnstars and the like. As for what happened to Pgreenfinch, I don't know who added the tag, but I think it had a great deal to do with his vociferous and labile argument on VfD and was meant to be an insulting joke to express annoyance. Wasn't me, though. Mind you, in that case it's pretty easy for anyone to remove the tag, too -- say the author, as he's doing revisions to the article. I still think our argument here is over each others' behavior, but I can see someone not in on the joke finding the tag and polluting all articles not sharing his or her point of view. Geogre 12:58, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • [Removed borderline personal attack by Pgreenfinch]
    • Please keep it civil, especially here on VfD. Pgreenfinch, IMHO you defended the EU-Olympics article a little overzealously; the community support for deleting the (insane) tag is certainly not a license to be insulting in return. Wikiquette is important — that's why the template is being listed here in the first place! Please don't label anyone "labile", even if they are not specifically mentioned by name. • Benc • 03:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FWIW, when I used the term, I meant to refer to the argument, not the person. I think it's a fair description of the argument's tone and have nothing against the person. We all get zealous when we defend our own creations, and it's hard to be dispassionate. I thought the argument (not the person) was highly emotional. Sorry if my description gave offense. I was, believe it or not, trying to be precise. Geogre 01:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I might have been overzealous and overdefensive, and interpretative about the motivations of the attacks of some opponents to the article (well, I was really surprised that it raised such fuss, there was notthe slightest remark, for or against, in the other language version). I agree that some of my remarks and comment can be qualified as borderline personal. I'm sorry to have shocked or hurt honest opponents. Cooperation, even sometimes via heated discussions, but not personal brawl, is the key for Ireland Information Guide to reach its goal to be a fantastic tool of knowledge, which is it is already. I have to keep to that spirit, which I approve completely, however hot - or considered hot - is the topic --Pgreenfinch 07:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep all. Much needed at Ireland Information Guide, the inherently-insane encyclopedia. Node 04:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete on the category, by the way. The reason for the split vote is that I have to really think to remember any articles upon which the (insane) tag has been used. I've seen it almost exclusively on user pages. The category is a more serious affair, because that's pretty much an articles-only phenomenon. If the (insane) template is mostly harmless, the same cannot be said of the category. Geogre 17:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. They are inflammatory and are always taken as personally insulting. They detract from civilized discourse about improving (or perhaps deleting) the article. I know that people will still be rude to each other but having templates for it sends a message that we condone a hostile environment. Rossami 13:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE - without a doubt! As if better alternatives cannot be found! Tactless, blunt, insulting and inflammatory. I can't believe that anyone is happy to slap this on a page in its current form! Something either warrants a speedy delete or else a VfD or disputed message. zoney

 ███ talk 13:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously, my first comment just described how impressed I was by the extent to which human perversity can go ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 14:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, amusing tag but serves no useful purpose WpZurp 15:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as it makes me chuckle to see it on, say, someone's user pages, it doesn't belong on articles. If the article is nonsense, speedy it, VfD it, or send it to cleanup. If the neutrality or accuracy are disputed, use those templates. If you just think the subject matter is insane but the article itself is fine, none of them belong... much as I'd like to dispute the sanity of some purported cults and mainstream institutions. I can't see a place where the sanity dispute is the best choice. It's a silly message (and, yes, potentially an insulting one), and belongs with other jokes of its type. Mindspillage 15:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all: useless. We already have more appropriate tags. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Though anybody can manually write something to degrade an article and/or its author/contributors, this message is an open invitation to do so. There are plenty of other ways to bring your point accross while being tactfull. ({{cleanup}}, {{disputed}}, ...) Yardcock 16:07, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We bite enough newcomers without making it any easier. Meelar (talk) 16:56, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
• Delete. Amusing when people put it on their own user pages, but counterproductive and offensive on real articles. We have plenty of more appropriate tags. Would prefer to see actual improvements to content, instead of everyone just running around putting more tags on articles. --Michael Snow 17:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. When I was about twelve years old, it was customary among me and my peers to use the word "stupid" as the very mildest of epithets that was understood among us to be a joke. I was (surprise, surprise) a bit of a nerd even then, and one day I was talking to my aunt about geometry and said "No, stupid, because a tangent only touches a circle at a single point." She assumed I was expressing a serious comparison of our relative intelligence. Her feelings were hurt. And, she formed an, um, unfavorable opinion of me. One that could not be undone simply by saying "I was just joking." Everyone has experienced the difficulty of communicating nuance, jokes, irony etc. in cyberspace. The use of words like "insane" is a setup for situations in which one person truly believes he is making an obvious joke and another person truly feels insulted. If people are stupid enough or insane enough to want to put a label like that in an article let them type it out in full, don't give them a handy shortcut. Personally I think putting something like that in an article is very, very close to vandalism. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This was not meant to be an insult. It merely means that there are thing about the article that could be cleaned up without resorting to {{cleanup}}. It's also meant to serve with other tags to explain exactly why something is {{disputed}} et. al. -- Grunt (talk) 17:45, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
  • I did not mean to insult my aunt when I was twelve, but the effect on my aunt was the same as if I had meant to. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the template. Dispute individual uses of the template, not its existance. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Erich 18:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all and BJAODN, unless Ireland Information Guide is going to abandon that pesky "NPOV" policy. -Sean Curtin 18:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This tag is meant to insult the author, because articles themselves cannot be insane, only people can be insane. An article can be nonsense written by an insane person. It's unhelpful to say that the author is insane, the tag should let people know what's wrong with the article; personifying an article doesn't help a bit. If an article is nonsense, then change it or VfD it. If it's validity is disputed, there's a tag for that. If an insane person is messing with it, revert it. And what's wrong with "resorting" to the cleanup tag, that's a useful tag. This is an insult; a funny insult, I'll admit. But in an edit war people aren't likely to find it quite so funny, so this encourages bad Wikiquette and is detrimental to WikiLove. BJAODN maybe? - Eisnel 19:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless except as an insult. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Templates don't kill people, Cabalists kill people. --Eequor 20:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for the obvious reasons. Or tag the template with itself as being "insane". If you think an article needs fixing or deleting, mark it with the appropriate template add it to the appropriate list. Jallan 21:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I totally agree with Benc that it does harm to have something that's cute and enticing to use, but liable to be taken as an insult. I can only too easily understand the temptation to use it ... please take it away. Bishonen 23:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. One of the more obviously bad things I've seen on Ireland Information Guide. If an article is factually wrong say so, if it's POV say so. If there is a nasty edit war going on get it protected. Calling someone isane serves no perpose.--Samuel J. Howard 00:00, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Absolutely delete. How insulting. If the quality of the article and its information are that bad, then VFD or speedy-delete it. Very unprofessional-sounding. Joyous 00:02, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
• The only people I can see this not being a problem for are those who would actually be proud of an insane article that they have contributed insanity to. Delete and

Fire Star 00:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I absolutely love it. Best laugh I've had all day. Too bad we're working on an encyclopedia and trying to get some measure of consensus, and there really isn't a place here for mean humor. Delete. Sigh. -- Jmabel 06:13, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Grunt writes in its defense, "This was not meant to be an insult. It merely means that there are thing about the article that could be cleaned up without resorting to {{cleanup}}. It's also meant to serve with other tags to explain exactly why something is {{disputed}} et. al." The first point suggests that this template is a lesser crticism than the "cleanup" tag, but most people would take it to be harsher. The second point highlights the problem: The template simply doesn't tell "exactly" (or even approximately) why an article is disputed. Not only does it encourage insults, it encourages laziness, i.e., non-explanation of criticism. JamesMLane 08:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; articles aren't insane, people are. -- SS 15:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. ··gracefool |☺ 23:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --MaxMad 13:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's amusing and doesn't hurt. If abused, can be removed more easily than most vandalism. Rls 15:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Stuffiness and wussiness may seem scientific, but they are merely scientistic. Good reasons for such criticism as "insane" are likely and actually fostered here. Clossius 19:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It made me laugh the first time I came across an article with this tag on it, but it's really not appropriate. Kevyn 09:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - blatantly inappropriate for the article space, and using it there is just too tempting - David Gerard 18:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:USAD

Do we really want to encourage creation of an article on every US Academic Decathlon? See 1994 United States Academic Decathlon to see where this is headed. RickK 23:03, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

• See Ireland Information Guide:Votes_for_deletion/1994_United_States_Academic_Decathlon for more information. The competition is notable and people have wanted to investigate the history of it (see the message board on the VfD page). Sure, it's not the Olympics, but it's the academic equivalent, with thousands of schools from the US, Canada, and Australia competing.

August 31

Template:Critic-stub

To begin with, why do we need an article about every episode of The Critic? And secondly, why do they need their own unique stub template? RickK 04:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• You haven't seen Category:Stub categories then, I assume. Specific stub messages are all the rage. (that was sarcasm, by the way). I've merged these articles into the main article, so I vote delete on the template, and the related Category:The Critic stubs it created. -- Netoholic @ 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, by all means. (Please don't tell me we have a ton of fancruft articles about The Critic, of all things. Decent show, but it's so unpopular that it got booted off of Comedy Central's late night rotation.) • Benc • 07:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:Nonsense

By chance, I found an older version of Template:Insane, which is listed above. This version is worded more diplomatically, but I think it should be deleted just the same. The discussion on MediaWiki talk:Nonsense (dating from March 2004) has:

• 2 votes for "It's Great!"
• 3 votes for "It's OK."
• 9 votes for "It's Nonsense!" (10 if you count me :-))
• 1 vote for "Neutral / Don't care".

• Benc • 06:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

September 1

Template:featurenom

Deprecated back in March 2004 in favor Template:fac. Was probably never even used because Template:fac was created 2 days after Template:featurenom. • Benc • 20:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)