text:
Shamsur Rahman (poet)

Shamsur Rahman (শামসুর রাহমান; 23 October 1929 – 17 August 2006) was a Bangladeshi poet, columnist and journalist. A prolific writer, Rahman produced more than sixty books of poetry collection and is considered a key figure in Bengali literature from the latter half of the 20th century. He was regarded as the unofficial poet laureate of Bangladesh. Major themes in his poetry and writings include liberal humanism, human relations, romanticised rebellion of youth, the emergence of and consequent events in Bangladesh, and opposition to religious fundamentalism.

Education
Shamsur Rahman was born in his grandfather's house 46 no. Mahut-Tuli, Dhaka. His paternal home is situated on the bank of the river Meghna, a village named Paratoli, near the Raipura thana of Narshingdi district. He was the third of thirteen children. He studied at Pogos High School from where he passed matriculation in 1945. Later he took his I.A. as a student of the Dhaka College. Shamsur Rahman started writing poetry at the age of eighteen, just after graduating from the Dhaka College. He studied English literature at the Dhaka University for three years but did not take the examination. After a break of three years he got admitted to the B.A. pass course and received his BA in 1953. He also received his MA in the same subject where he stood second in second division.

In his leisure after the matriculation, he read the Golpo Guccho of Rabindranath Tagore. He told that this book took him into the extra ordinary world and transformed him into an altogether different personality. In 1949, his poem Unissho Unoponchash was published in Sonar Bangla which was then edited by Nalinikishor Guho.

He had a long career as a journalist and served as the editor of a national daily, Dainik Bangla and the Weekly Bichitra in the 1980s. A shy person by nature, he became an outspoken liberal intellectual in the 1990s against religious fundamentalism and reactionary nationalism in Bangladesh. As a consequence, he became a frequent target of the politically conservative as well as Islamists of the country. This culminated in the January 1999 attack on his life by the militant Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami. He survived the attempt.

Poetry
Shamsur Rahman's first book of poetry, Prothom Gaan Dwityo Mrittyur Agey (First Song Before the Second Death) was published in 1960. He had to go through the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s which also reflected in his poems clearly. He wrote his famous poem Asader Shirt which was written with respect to the mass uprising of 1969 led by Maulana Bhasani. During the Bangladesh Liberation War he wrote a number of poems based on the war. These poems were so inspiring that they were recited at the camps of freedom fighters. Later these poems were published in Bondi Shibir Theke (From Confinement in Enemy Territory) in 1972. Later he continued writing poems in the independent Bangladesh and remained as the poet whose poems reflect the history of the nation. During the historical movement against Ershad he published his book Buk Tar Bangladesher Hridoy indicating the great sacrifice of Nur Hossain.

Poetic diction
Shamsur Rahman wrote most of his poems in free verse, often with the rhythm style known as Poyaar or Okhshorbritto. It is popularly known that he followed this pattern from poet Jibanananda Das. He also wrote poems in two other major patterns of Bengali rhythmic style, namely, Matrabritto and Shwarobritto.

Career in journalism
Shamsur Rahman started his professional career as a co-editor in the English daily Morning News in 1957. Later he left this job and went to the Dhaka center of the then Radio Pakistan. But he returned to his own rank at Morning News in 1960 and was there till 1964. After the liberation of Bangladesh he wrote columns in the daily Dainik Bangla. In 1977 he became the editor of this daily. He also jointly worked as the editor of Bichitra, a weekly published since 1973. During the period of President Ershad he got involved with internal turbulence in the Dainik Bangla. A rank 'Chief Editor' was created to take away his position as the top executive and rip him off all executive powers. In 1987 he left the daily as a protest against this injustice. He also worked as the editor of monthly literary magazine Adhuna for two years since 1986. and as the main editor of the weekly Muldhara in 1989. He worked as one of the editors of Kobikantha, an irregular poetry magazine, in 1956.

Attempted assassination
On 18 January 1999, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh tried to assassinate Shamsur Rahman in his residence in Shyamali, Dhaka. The attackers tried to decapitate him with an axe and his wife was seriously injured. The attackers were led by Hasan, a student of Dhaka College. He survived the assassination attempt. Charges were filed against seven by Criminal Investigation Department Assistant Superintendent of Police Abdul Kahhar Akhand on 8 July 1999. On 12 February 2004, the accused assassins were acquitted due to a lack of witness by Dhaka's Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court. Bangladesh police considered re-opening the case in 2016.

Death
His health broke down towards the end of the 1990s and on two occasions he received major cardiac surgery. He died on 17 August 2006 of heart and kidney failure after having been in a coma for 12 days. He was 76.

Critical acclaim
Zillur Rahman Siddiqui, a friend and critic, describes Shamsur Rahman as one who is "deeply rooted in his own tradition." In his opinion, Shamsur Rahman "still soaks the language of our times, transcending the limits of geography. In his range of sympathy, his catholicity, his urgent and immediate relevance for us, Shamsur Rahman is second to none."

Professor Syed Manzoorul Islam has similar praise for Rahman, "It is true he has built on the ground of the 30s poets, but he has developed the ground, explored into areas they thought too dark for exploration, has added new features to it, landscaped it and in the process left his footprints all over."

Azfar Hussain also commends Rahman's work thus: "[...] he [Rahman] decisively shapes diction in post-Tagorean and post-Jibananandian Bangla poetry. Also, Rahman offers us the kind of poetry that effectively traverses a wide range of middle-class experiences, while making some politically significant inter-class connections in the interest of animating and inspiring broad-based struggles against oppression and injustice, although his perspective remains inflected by a progressive and robust version of liberal humanism."

In the year 1983, renowned Bangladeshi writer Humayun Azad wrote a book called Shamsur Rahman : Nisshongo Sherpa (A Lonely Climber) that offered a sustained critical analysis of Shamsur Rahman's poetry.

Tribute
On 23 October 2018, Rahman was honoured with a Google Doodle posthumously on his 89th birthday.

Poetry
• Prothom Gan Ditio Mrittur Age (1960)

• Roudro Korotite (1963)

• Biddhosto Nilima (1967)

• Niralokay Dibboroth (1968)

• Neej Bashbhumay (1970)

• Bondi Shibir Theke (1972)

• Dusshom

• Tableay Applegulo Heshe Othay (1986)

• Obirol Jolahromi (1986)

• Amra Kojon Shongi (1986)

• Jhorna Amar Angulay (1987)

• Shopnera Dukray Othay Barbar (1987)

• Khub Beshi Valo Thakte Nei (1987)

• Moncher Majhkhanay (1988)

• Buk Tar Bangladesher Hridoy (1988)

• Matal Hrittik

• Hridoy Amar Prithibir Alo (1989)

• Shay Ak Porobashay(1990)

• Grihojudder Agae(1990)

• Khondito Gourob(1992)

• Dhongsher Kinare Bashay(1992)

• Akash Ashbe Neme(1994)

• Uzar Baganay(1995)

• Asho Kokil Asho Shornochapa

• Manob Hridoy Naibeddo Shajai

• Hemonto Shondhay Kichukal(1997)

• Chayagoner Shonge Kichukkhon

• Meghlokay Monoz(1998)

• Shoundorjo Amar Ghore(1998)

• Ruper Probale Dogdho Shondha(1998)

• Tukro Kichu Shonglaper Shako(1998)

• Shopno O Dushshopnay Bachay Achi(1999)

• Nokkhotro Bajate Bajate(2000)

• Shuni Hridoyer Dhoni(2000)

• Hridopodmay Jotsna Dolay(2001)

• Bhognostupay Golaper Hashi(2002)

• Bhangachora Chand Mukh Kalo Kore Dhukchay(2003)

• Ak Phota kemon Onol(1986)

• Horiner Har(1993)

• Gontobbo Nai Ba Thakuk(2004)

• Krishnopokkhay Purnimar Dikay(2004)

• Gorostanay Kokiler Korun Aaobhan(2005)

• Andhokar Theke Aloy(2006)

• Na Bastob Na Dushshopno(2006)

Short stories

 * Shamsur Rahmaner Golpo

Novels
• Octopus(1983)

• Adbhut Adhar Ak(1985)

• Niyoti Montaz(1985)

• Elo Je Abelay(1994)

Children's literature
• Alating Belating(1974)

• Dhan Bhanle Kuro Debo(1977)

• Golap Phote Khukir Hatay(1977)

• Rongdhonur Shako(1994)

• Lal Fulkir Chora(1995)

• Noyonar Jonno(1997)

• Amer Kuri Jamer Kuri(2004)

• Noyonar Jonno(2005)

Autobiography
• Kaaler Dhuloy Lekha

• Smritir Shohor

Collected columns
• Akanto Bhaban

Poems in translation
• Robert Froster Kobita(1966)

• Robert Froster Nirbachito Kobita(1968)

• Khawaja Farider Kobita(1968)

Drama in translation
• William Shakespeare's Hamlet

• Uzein O'Neeler Markomilions

Others
• Uponnyash Shomogro

• Noyonar Uddeshe Golap

• Kobitar Shather Gerostali

• Gorosthane Kokiler Korun Ahban

• Nirbachito[SR] 100 Kobita

• Noyonar Jonno Ekti Golap

• Shera Shamsur Rahman

• Rongdhonur Sako

• Shamsur Rahman-er Sreshtha Kobita (1976)

• Premer Kobita (1981)

• Shamsur Rahmaner Sreshtho Kobita (from Kolkata) (1985)

• Shamsur Rahmaner Rajnaitik Kobita (1988)

• Shamsur Rahmaner Premer Kobita (1993)

• Shonirbachito Premer Kobita (1993)

• Nirbachito Chora O Kobita (1996)

• Kabbyashombhar (1996)

• Chorashomogro (1998)

• Prem O Prokitir Kobita (2004)

• Shera Shamsur Rahman (2004)

• Shamsur Rahman Kobita Shongroho (2005)

• Shamsur Rahman Goddo Shongroho (2005)

• Kobita Shomogro Ak (2005)

• Kobtia Shomogro Dui (2006)

Awards

 * Adamjee Award (1962)
 * Bangla Academy Literary Award (1969)
 * Ekushey Padak (1977)
 * Swadhinata Dibosh Award (1991)
 * Mitshubishi Award of Japan (1992)
 * Ananda Puroshker from India (1994).
 * TLM South Asian Literature Award for the Masters, 2006.

Sample work
His best known poem, arguably, is a poem written in 1971 during the liberation war in Bangladesh.

স্বাধীনতা তুমি রবি ঠাকুরের অজর কবিতা, অবিনাশী গান স্বাধীনতা তুমি কাজী নজরুল, ঝাঁকড়া চুলের বাবরি দোলানো মহান পুরুষ সৃষ্টি সুখের উল্লাশে কাঁপা
 * স্বাধীনতা তুমি

Shadhinota tumi Robi Ţhakurer ôjor kobita, obinashi gan Shadhinota tumi Kazi Nozrul, jhakŗa chuler babri dolano môhan purush srishţi-shukher ullashe kãpa ...
 * Shadhinota Tumi

Freedom, you are the immortal poems and songs of Rabindranath Freedom, you are Kazi Nazrul, the great man with waving unkempt hair, raptured in your joy of creation ...
 * Freedom, You

the phrase "srishti-sukher ullase" also refers to one of Nazrul's poems "aaj srishti sukher ullase"

Freedom, you're The classic verses of Tagore, timeless lyrics. Freedom, you're Kazi Nazrul a great man with thick mane...
 * Oh Freedom

title: Shamsur Rahman (poet)


text:
Provincial Highway 61 (Taiwan)

Provincial Highway No. 61, usually known as the West Coast Expressway (西部濱海快速公路), is a highway that runs along the west coast of Taiwan. Several sections of the highway are freeway standards with no at-grade intersections, while the rest are local highway standards. There are several sections open for traffic. Others are still under construction.

Major cities along the route

 * New Taipei
 * Taoyuan
 * Hsinchu
 * Taichung
 * Tainan

Intersections with other freeways and expressways

 * Provincial Highway 64 at Exit 4 (Bali 2) in Bali, New Taipei
 * Provincial Highway 66 at Exit 48 (Guanyin) in Guanyin, Taoyuan
 * Freeway 3 at Exit 90 (West Coast) in Zhunan, Miaoli
 * Provincial Highway 78 at Exit 233 (Taixi Junction) in Taixi, Yunlin
 * Provincial Highway 82 at Exit 262 (Dongshi 2) in Dongshi, Chiayi
 * Provincial Highway 84 at Exit 283 (Beimen Junction) in Beimen, Tainan

Provincial Highway 61A
Provincial Highway No. 61A started at the Port of Taipei and ended at an interchange with Provincial Highway 15. It connected PH 61 to the Port of Taipei. It was 2.888 km long.

PH 61A was defunct and merged into PH 61 on June 29, 2020.

Exit list

The entire route was in Bali, New Taipei City. {| class="plainrowheaders wikitable" !scope=col|km !scope=col|Mile !scope=col|Exit !scope=col|Name !scope=col|Destinations !scope=col|Notes !scope="row" style="text-align: right;"|0.000 !scope="row" style="text-align: right;"|0.000 !scope="row" style="text-align: right;"|2.888 !scope="row" style="text-align: right;"|1.795 !scope="row" style="text-align: right;"|2.888 !scope="row" style="text-align: right;"|1.795
 * 0
 * Port of Taipei End
 * Bali, Port of Taipei
 * Northern terminus
 * 2
 * Bali
 * Southern terminus
 * Southern terminus
 * bgcolor="#dff9f9" |—
 * bgcolor="#dff9f9" |
 * bgcolor="#dff9f9" |
 * bgcolor="#dff9f9" |Continuation beyond southern terminus

Provincial Highway 61B
Provincial Highway No. 61B (Changhua Coastal Industrial Park - Hemei IC.) is one of two branch lines of Provincial Highway No. 61. It starts at Shengang Township and ends at National Highway No. 3 Hemei Interchange, Changhua County, which connects National Highway No. 3 and Provincial Highway No. 61. Its length is 6.355 km (3.949 mi). Before 2011, the route was part of Provincial Highway No. 74.

Dual use
The Highway has been constructed in such a way that it can be used as a defensive line in the event of a Chinese invasion.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Provincial Highway 61 (Taiwan)


text:
WCWG

WCWG (channel 20) is a television station licensed to Lexington, North Carolina, United States, serving the Piedmont Triad region as an affiliate of The CW. It is owned by Hearst Television alongside Winston-Salem–licensed NBC affiliate WXII-TV (channel 12). WCWG and WXII-TV share studios on Coliseum Drive in Winston-Salem; through a channel sharing agreement, the stations transmit using WXII-TV's spectrum from an antenna on Sauratown Mountain in Stokes County.

History
The station first signed on the air on October 30, 1985, as WEJC (standing for "We Exalt Jesus Christ"; operating as an independent station, it originally maintained a religious educational format. Initially, the programming was Baptist- and Reformed-based and stayed away from "Signs and Wonders" preaching. The station first operated from studios located off I-85 Business in Lexington. Due to lack of suitable programming as well as the perception of religious programs due to hard times in Christian broadcasting following the Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart scandals starting in 1987, the station was reduced to minimum staffing and operations from the transmitter building near Randleman. It was originally owned by Koinonia Broadcasting. During this time, WEJC's programming was split in approximately half between the Home Shopping Club and religious programming. In 1990, the station moved its operations to a new studio facility located on Guilford College Road in Greensboro, eventually resuming local studio production and eliminated most of the HSN programming. The station was affiliated with the broader-based evangelical Christian Television Network from 1990 until March 1996.

Koinonia sold the station to Pappas Telecasting in 1995. Initially it kept the religious format, but it soon became a WB affiliate, and added that network's programming to its lineup immediately after the sale was finalized. On March 14, 1996, it changed its call letters to WBFX. Religious programming was reduced to mornings from 5 to 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. to noon in the spring of 1996, with the rest of the schedule filled by syndicated cartoons from 7 to 9 a.m., westerns in the early afternoon, cartoons until 5 p.m., additional westerns in the evening, WB programs and older movies in prime time, and drama series and classic movies in the late night hours.

That summer, the station reached an agreement with Fox owned-and-operated station (now affiliate) WGHP (channel 8) to carry the Fox Kids programming block, which had aired on that station since it switched to Fox in September 1995. Upon gaining new affiliates through its group affiliation deal with New World Communications (which sold WGHP directly to Fox as it placed New World over the 12-station ownership limit at the time), Fox executives had decided to change the carriage policies for Fox Kids, allowing a station to choose to keep airing it or be granted the right to pass the block to another station in the market. More recent off-network sitcoms were added to WBFX's schedule, and more of its religious shows were dropped.

The station's call letters changed to WTWB-TV (for "Triad WB") on August 28, 2000. WTWB dropped Fox's children's programming in early 2002, when Fox canceled the weekday block nationwide; WGHP chose not to pick up Fox's new Saturday morning cartoon block, Fox Box (later 4Kids TV), which replaced Fox Kids in 2002. As a result, the block did not air at all in the Piedmont Triad.

On January 24, 2006, the Warner Bros. unit of Time Warner and CBS Corporation announced that the two companies would shut down The WB and UPN and combine the networks' respective programming to create a new "fifth" network called The CW. On March 2, 2006, UPN affiliate WUPN-TV (channel 48, now WMYV) was announced as an affiliate of MyNetworkTV. Two weeks later on March 17, 2006, WTWB was confirmed as the market's CW outlet. On August 10, 2006, the call sign was changed to WCWG (for "CW Greensboro") to reflect the affiliation.

On January 16, 2009, Pappas announced that several of its stations, including WCWG, would be sold to New World TV Group, after the acquisition received United States bankruptcy court approval. At some point, New World TV Group would change its name to Titan Broadcasting. On April 1, 2013, Lockwood Broadcast Group announced it would be acquiring WCWG from Titan Broadcasting; the sale was consummated on September 23.

In the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s incentive auction, WCWG sold its spectrum for $105,731,122 and indicated that it would enter into a post-auction channel sharing agreement. WCWG subsequently reached a channel sharing agreement with WXII-TV (channel 12); the station also entered into a separate shared services agreement allowing WXII's owner, Hearst Television, to provide additional services to WCWG. With the spectrum move, WCWG dropped Escape and Laff from their channel lineup on July 31, 2017.

On October 4, 2017, it was announced that Hearst would buy WCWG outright for $3.3 million. The purchase was completed on February 16, 2018.

News operation
As part of the shared services agreement with WXII, the station moved its 10 p.m. newscast from its MeTV subchannel to WCWG beginning July 31, 2017. The newscast was also expanded to a full hour on weeknights while remaining a half-hour on weekends.

On August 28, 2017, WCWG additionally added a two-hour extension of WXII's morning show.

Subchannels
The station's signal is multiplexed:

Video Mix TV, a localized viewer request music video channel which originated for ten years in the South Florida market, was carried on digital subchannel 20.2 from June 1, 2009, to December 26, 2010. On December 27, 2010, the subchannel affiliated with Black Network Television, an African American-oriented service with emphasis on the local community. BNT's programming was supplemented with syndicated programs, and at launch also included offerings from the AMG TV network. On July 1, 2015, WCWG replaced BNT with the Escape TV channel.

In May 2010, WCWG began carrying Spanish-language network Estrella TV on digital subchannel 20.3. In the summer of 2012, Bounce TV was added to digital channel 20.4. On June 1, 2015, WCWG replaced Estrella TV with the Laff network.

Analog-to-digital conversion
WCWG shut down its analog signal on June 12, 2009, as part of the FCC-mandated transition to digital television for full-power stations. The station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 19, using virtual channel 20.

Out-of-market cable and satellite carriage
In recent years, WCWG has been carried on cable in Siler City, which is part of the Raleigh television market and in Wytheville, Virginia, which is part of the Roanoke market. On DirecTV, WCWG has been carried in Grayson County, Virginia, which is also part of the Roanoke market.

title: WCWG


text:
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/October 2004

Deleted

 * Template:Test6 - doesn't fit into the trend established in previous test messages, and borders on nonsense. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:55, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * Delete and BJAODN. • Benc • 03:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep because it... because... because I say so! --Node 10:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, with contextual explanation of the other /Template:Test\d/ messages. Note the D in BJAODN. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:58, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * BJAODL. →Raul654 05:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:VfD entry - a template created (by me) prior to the latest restructuring of VfD, which turned out to be unusable because parameters don't work with subst.   — Gwalla | Talk 23:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Pity. Delete. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:45, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

 * Template:Keep - blanked by originator. RickK 06:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:45, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * Since this seems like a newbie test, probably can be speedy-ed. -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

 * Template:IsMnCOTW - trolling. RickK 06:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. How is this trolling? Absent context, it looks like a perfectly good template to me. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:45, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see that this could be construed as a troll, but please provide evidence that it is one, rather than just a pet project that hasn't taken off yet. --Twinxor 23:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See Votes for deletion/Micronation Collaboration of the Week. RickK 00:15, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * ... I don't quite understand why you're listing this separately here. I mean, yes, it should be deleted, even if only because it's going to be an orphanless template after the main deletion goes through -- but won't that deletion just take place from VfD proper, along with the rest of the MCotW entries? --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 05:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
 * No, the VfD listing is only for the article and not for the accompanying template. RickK 19:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Delete. --Twinxor 07:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Definition of - originally thought to be used for in-line definitions, but not very flexible. Better served by just creating the links manually as needed. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
 * As creator of template, no argument. — siro  χ  o  20:40, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Google - Maybe this is just a pet-peeve of mine, but "Search Google for " is not in my mind a legitimate "External Link" to be included in an article, and that seems to be primarily what this template it for. Why don't I think it is legitimate OR a good idea? Because 1. the results are NOT often useful or anything we'd necessarily want to send people off to (Google bomb, anyone?) by default (External Links should only be for "approved" sites relating to the topic), 2. it privileges one search engine over many others for no real good reason (not that I don't use Google for everything either, but as a matter of principle it's a little silly), 3. if somebody wanted to search for the topic in google, they certainly could have done that already if they could have searched for it in Wikipedia (i.e. it is pointless, useless, redundant). A legitimate external link might be for the page creator to use google, find a decent link, and then put it into the article. Just pointing to Google is a cop-out, and one which can easily lead to Wikipedia willingly pointing people to completely false information. Okay, got that off my chest, willing to hear what others think about it. Examples of pages with this are of course available here. My gripes here do NOT necessarily apply to Google Category/Directory/Group links, which are often good external links. I also see that some people use this as a functional category for Talk disputes, VfD, etc. I don't have a problem with that, clearly, but only with it being used in articles, but I'd like to see if I could reach some sort of consensus before I murderously go purging Google searchs from Exteral Links. --Fastfission 15:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree; delete.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   03:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be deleted. People can search Google for themselves. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 04:20, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Oop 23:05, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - templates used just to create simple external links are quite poor. With all of these hitting the bin, I think we're close to being able to set this as policy. -- Netoholic @ 18:43, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

 * Template:Sex is flat-out ridiculous. There are those to whom a display of anything beyond the face and wrists is immodest and offensive; are we going to put this message on any article that contains an image with such a display? —No-One Jones (m) 00:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support deletion.--[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete. -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
 * Delete. →Raul654 00:58, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gzornenplatz 01:02, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cantus 01:08, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Surely this is useful. There's a warning on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, for example, but it seems like it would be better to have it standardized. Yes, it would be hard to determine what merits the warning and what doesn't, but that's not an excuse to not try, IMO.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   01:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Applauds --Cantus 01:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, DELETE, DELETE. Is Cantus John Ashcroft in disguise? Or, now that I think of it, why not simply drape all images of vaginas, penis, and clitorises in Wiki with a burkah -- they'll still be there, but they will be shielded from innocent or offended eyes.  Maybe we could bring in an Mullah or two to give us expert guideance on these sensitive matters....Hayford Peirce 02:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (That's uncalled-for, Hayford.)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   02:08, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * But this is not a forum to share your favorite sex pictures :) --Cantus 02:10, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I've given arguments against such templates before so i'll summarize them here: It will cause useless revert wars, and its not our responsibility to warn people about the content.  Its a bad direction for Wikipedia to head.  — siro  χ  o  06:51, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice.--Eloquence*
 * Delete. Endless arguability gives birth to senseless edit/flame wars. --Oop 23:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If images in an article would not be shown on daytime TV so as not to shock younger viewers, then this article requires a warning. Do any of the votes have children, by any chance? JFW | T@lk  16:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This cannot shock younger viewers unless their parents hit them when they ask waht it is. Wikipedia should not endorse bad parenting.--Jirate 17:44, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * delete. users should use wikipedia at own risk. this is alreay covered in the general disclaimers --Jiang 09:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Inuse30, Template:Inuse60, Template:Inuse90, Template:Inuse120 - Looking to deprecate these in favor of Template:Inusefor (used as  , as shown on Template messages/Maintenance.  New template is more extensible, and I've rarely seen these Inusexx templates used anywhere. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * If these do end up being deleted, there are also some leftover redirects, like MediaWiki:Inuse30, which can go as well. Check each template's "What links here". -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obsoleted by superior new template. —No-One Jones (m) 17:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as above --Phil | Talk 10:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as above --Alphax (talk) 15:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Working - i dont see the point of this. Every article is work in progress. --Jiang 22:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * And we have Template:Inuse and template:Inusefor anyway. Delete. —No-One Jones (m) 23:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: particularly pointless since it practically incites edit conflicts. --Phil | Talk 10:38, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --Alphax (talk) 15:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless. Appears to have been created to discourage speedy deletion of the creator's stubs. --Michael Snow 03:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:AyB - nonsense. RickK 23:03, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's patent nonsense. Speedily delete it. →Raul654 23:04, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Not deleted

 * Template:Recipe moving (and redir MediaWiki:Recipe moving - obscure, unused, and redundant with Template:Move to Wikibooks. -- Netoholic @ 20:05, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
 * Keep. Snowspinner 23:52, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's odd, thought this one was a no-brainer. Any reason? -- Netoholic @ 05:19, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * Mostly because my sense is that we move a lot of recipes and it's probably useful to indicate where in Wikibooks the thing should go, as Wikibooks is rather large. Snowspinner 06:45, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * if it's not used then delete--Jiang 06:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Recipe moving shows it is not useful (being used). It's not even listed on the Template messages pages. -- Netoholic @ 15:59, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
 * What's your point? I'd like it if the stub template didn't have anything linking to it, but we'd keep that in case future stubs come our way. There's a very good chance more recipes will be placed on Wikipedia, and then we'll need to use it! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Decision: Delete: 2 votes, Keep: 2 votes. Consensus is not to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:MontyPython (and redir MediaWiki:MontyPython - prime use for See also section and categories. -- Netoholic @ 20:05, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
 * Keep Template:MontyPython, its a useful navbox, there is no reason to delete navboxes.  — siro  χ  o  08:55, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is nothing but a vanity box. Snowspinner 23:52, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * convert to footer. --Jiang 05:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC);
 * Keep useful navbox. However, delete MediaWiki:MintyPython.  —AlanBarrett 06:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Kept: 2 delete votes, 1 keep vote, 1 convert to footer vote Ta bu shi da yu 12:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/November 2004

Deleted

 * Template:OoP mess - Completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This serves only to incite problems related to the Israeli POV edit war. -- Netoholic @ 15:35, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
 * This was not my intention, but Neoholic is not the first to think so, so I guess I could use some help in formulation. My intention was to solve the following problem: so many moves and literal copies have been made, it became difficult to track the authorship of text bordering on GFDL violation. Netoholic, would you suggest an alternative formulation? Feel free to edit both the template and the text in my subpage. Gady 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I reformulated the template to be less contentious. Netoholic, is that OK? Gady 16:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think its just not useful. The message only appears on a few pages and is too limited to be used outside of this particular issue. This isn't what templates are for. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer if the text were replicated between these (now 9) pages? Gady 17:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. inappropriate to draw personal attn --Jiang 05:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Replicate the text instead.  —AlanBarrett 06:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the logic here. Why replicate the text? This very discussion shows that this would do nothing except incur extra work. Somebody thought the formulation was contentious — I changed it. In one place. Claiming that templates should only be used when there are (say) at least 50 uses is the computer programming equivalent of saying "do not write a routine unless it's used in at least 50 places". Gady 20:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful information used in many articles. Jayjg 23:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It continues to serve a purpose on talk pages to draw readers/editors attention. Under no circumstances replicate the text; that serves to increase the maintenance load without any benefits to the 'pedia as it is read. -- Chris j wood 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete.  —Lowellian (talk)
 * Note: I have left a message on Gadykozma's talk page asking him to cast a specific vote. Please wait a few days for this vote! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (sorry, should have known better) Gady 14:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:WWIIEquipStub - unused stub template. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 05:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Inclusion - proposed use for this template was rejected, now obsolete and unused. --Michael Snow 17:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Michael Snow is correct. The proposal was to reject the use of the template. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Nintendochar - A huge box for the bottom of Nintendo character articles like Zelda. Unwieldy and unnecessary with Category:Nintendo characters and its subcats. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This box is a crime. Delete it with haste. Snowspinner 23:54, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we shrink the font down another few percent... No, just delete it. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * delete, too huge --Jiang 05:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I was a big editor of this, but it's gotten too big. Delete. Andre ( talk )A| 23:14, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be split into Nintendo universes? Like Mario, Zelda, etc. However, as it is, delete. - Vague Rant 12:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if you go by universe they're pretty big - check out Category:Mario characters for instance. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting, merge the characters into one link and put on the template (for example, Mario Characters), or shrink the template down with another, or both. ––67.81.178.64 4:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * is illegible. Mrwojo 16:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: The category is enough. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:36, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Far too large! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Decision Delete. 8 votes to delete, 1 anonymous vote to keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Religion - orphaned, POV, and useless --Jiang 06:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * D I don't think its POV, but certainly a better case for categories. Delete redir at MediaWiki:Religion too. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * Delete: It is POV, just like all those various other earlier religion templates.  —Lowellian (talk)   04:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: all the things Jiang said. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Decision: unanymous decsion to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Violence - misuse of templates; articles related as such should be categorized --Jiang 06:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * D Not a "misuse" just an early template created before categories. Delete redir at MediaWiki:Violence too. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think it's not useful or necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Decision: unanymous vote to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:PremierCollegesofIndia - what is "premier" is POV and poorly defined and we dont need a box for poorly related institutions. --Jiang 06:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * D replaceable w/ categories. Was previously up for deletion (see Talk also). If deleted now, take care of Talk page and redirects at MediaWiki:PremierCollegesofIndia and MediaWiki talk:PremierCollegesofIndia. -- Netoholic @ 06:29, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * Delete, better with cartegories. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Decision: unanymous decision to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:FiveStarUniversitiesofIndia much like above. Delete redirects at MediaWiki:FiveStarCollegesofIndia and MediaWiki:FiveStarUniversitiesofIndia. -- Netoholic @ 06:30, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Decision: unanymous decision to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Battles is no longer used; it was agreed in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles to use the category system instead. (There's a redirect at MediaWiki:Battles to be deleted too.) Gdr 19:13, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
 * Decision: no objections to deleting, so will be done. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Protectedwho - I have strong feelings against a template like this. I feel like it's existence will only foster more ill-will during an edit dispute.  Disputes are a problem for the community - listing out the specific "combatents" seems petty. -- Netoholic @ 18:28, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, delete, and keep the personalities on the talk page FT2 18:45, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree with Netoholic. Also violates Avoid self-reference even more; readers don't care who is arguing.  --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: for reasons given by Netoholic and Whosyourjudas -- Chris j wood 00:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointing fingers will just make such problems worse. Josh 03:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - absolutely. I agree 100% with Netoholic on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:EMspectrum - orphan. Not really a template.  RickK 00:04, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree. Also, it is unnecessary since it is essentially a less functional duplicate of Template:EMSpectrum. Josh 03:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete (Comment by Ta bu shi da yu on 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * Delete. Quickly!  --03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Comment by Whosyourjudas)

 * template:bogan-stub. silly and unencylopedic. clarkk 11:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete absolutely! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I highly doubt that we have enough "bogan-related stubs" to warrant a template. Josh 05:41, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Not deleted

 * Template:Controversial3 - essentially yet another version of Template:TotallyDisputed -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Template:Controversial2 - unused and duplicated by using other disputed tags -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly. The difference between "This article is totally disputed" and "parts of this article are disputed, while others have reached concensus" is not trivial. I can't help but think that this is an attempt to avoid discussing your attempts to remove the Controversial3 tag from the 2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities page. --Spud603 19:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Disagree with deletion (reasons below), and note that Netaholic's actions seems to suggest he wants a overstated tag rather than an accurate one on the article. He also seems to have something against Templates, judging by the number he's voting to delete above. FT2 20:07, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * (further comments explaining the validity of these templates can be found at Template talk:Controversial3)
 * Also disagree with deletion and second Spud603's claim that Netoholic listed Controversial3 for deletion in leui of debating its applicability on the election controversy talk page. This may be a pattern, Netoholic also listed election controversy images for deletion without talk page mention.  Netoholic removed links to the page from other articles without mention, attempted to orphan the page when at least a half a dozen people disagreed with him.  And now the page itself is listed for deletion, there is little doubt there is a systematic pattern.   After others have catogorically rejected is interpretation of wikipedia guideliness he proceeds anyway.  In my opinion he has not bothered with consensus building or debate, which has worked against him because some of his claims are valid.  I refer to all relevant users' histories in this matter to back up my claims.  Zen Master 20:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree with removing this very strongly. These seem quite reasonable! Not everything is totally disputed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Granularity of dispute is to be encouraged. - Amgine 06:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'''NETOHOLIC WILL YOU STOP UNILATERALLY REMOVING OTHER PEOPLES (INCLUDING MY) VIEWS FROM DELETION VOTES AND EDITS YOU HAVE PROPOSED! YOU HAVE PULLED THIS KIND OF STUNT ON ABOUT 4 ARTICLES AND DEBATES NOW - LEAVE IT ALONE!!!'''
 * Well, I don't think the shouting is necessary. I tried to move this very nice explanation to the template's talk page. The vote section here is limited on space, so I was trying only to make it more useful. If you disagree, you could have asked me to undo that move, or done it yourself without interjecting angry words. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
 * No. You don't remove comments relevant to a vote, to a completely different page, and then ask "why are you annoyed, I was only trying to help?" I accept you (or someone) left a pointer, but I think on a VfD or TFD thats wrong. The way it comes over is that if you dont like it, you delete it. If you want to talk, then we can move this to a talk page or wiki-IRC though. But right now thats not once but *many* deletions you've "just done" that way, and right now thats one too many for me. You delete and unilaterally edit too easily ignoring the need to check 1st, is all. Stop it - NOW - and try not to delete wiki-significant stuff without checking 1st in some way. FT2 22:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * ''FT2's comment on and  templates:

 * I have been struck that many good articles become gridlocked under LOCK or NPOV tags. Thats not the wiki way. I concluded that a big part of the problem is that most people with objections tend to use only a few (fairly strong) templates, when in fact neutrally these may not be good descriptively. I wrote my conclusions on Village Pump (Policy) here on Nov 9, which summarises the problem, cross references it, gives examples and shows how more appropriate templates can help resolve the issue. I wrote a comment on Nov 10 at the end of Template_talk:Controversial (please also read) noting there were different ways an article could be controversial, so 2 or 3 templates to fairly refect each were needed. This is important, because to wrongly tag an article is in its own way, more misleading than to wrongly write it - at one stroke it adds an entire POV which if not accurate is a problem. It also polarises debate.

 * Example of this approach at work: one article was suffering an edit/revert war, principally over whether the subject matter was POV and what should be covered by the article. Facts within the article were not disputed. The edits moved between "NPOV" and "nothing". I re-tagged the article to a tag,, that explicitly said there was a dispute over neutrality of the title - and since then the effect has been that productive debate has resumed, with both sides feeling this is a more accurate description and hence respectful of their views, in effect by tagging it correctly as "this title or scope is in dispute but the contents are not", a consensus was created which previous templates had failed to do.

 * As a serious wiki-ist involved as best I'm able (when I have the time) in
 * Mediation (Cultural and historical background of Jesus),
 * Analysis of articles needing rewriting (Paraphilia),
 * Writing of substantial articles (Transactional analysis)
 * Updating key pages for clarity to contributors (WP:RFC, WP:RfM)
 * NPOV contribution and rewrites to articles which are heavily controversial and emotive (Pursuit of Nazi collaborators, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

 * It is my experience that a correct tag permits compromise and co-operation. Hence I created these two tags plus another Template:ActiveDiscuss to allow articles being worked on or subject to dispute to be marked as "actively being developed" or "partly disputed", so that future wiki-ists can actually build articles and not get caught up so often in edit wars over one side tagging everything as disputed, the other side untagging everything as OK. The truth's normally in between, and Wikipedia will gain from having a few templates that allow contributors to say this. FT2 19:47, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Will an admin make a decision on this template? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Template:DoubleDisputed - not in use, seems extremely limited. -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

 * Reasons for tag:
 * The tag was created as NPOVNPOV. I modified and renamed it to deflect dispute into collaboration. It reflects a very pragmatic approach and reorients debate to the article with a strong request to the effect "now you've both had your say, agree where you stand by choosing a better tag between you". It is quite likely to work, because theres a real difference between removing or changing a tag someone else put there which you disagree with (edit/revert war) and adding a tag to say its disputed (no edit/revert war). Right now articles end up as "totallydisputed" being the one thing that's agreed on beyond which you cant go. Fewer edit wars = more focus on article. Yes they shouldnt get that way but we all know huge numbers at any time do. This might just be the way to seriously reduce that and ebncourage article collaborators to compromise and talk instead of lock it up while they squabble. Please see more specific notes on talk page. FT2 23:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. The fact that someone put a dispute tag on an article is fairly good evidence of a dispute, no? Snowspinner 19:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * It can (and regularly has) also lead to article status being seriously misrepresented as regards the actual debate. And also sometimes it has ended up with the article PROT or VPROT in that state for a long time, locked and misrepresented. FT2 01:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Unsure This template disputes the original dispute; that is, disagrees that the article is actually in dispute. e.g. non-involved party applying a dispute when a talk page discussion gets lively, but when none of the involved parties have called the article in dispute. OTOH, if it is not in use... Amgine (added siggy)
 * Keep (Logically it wont be in use till its been round a while) It is highly non-trivial to be able to say "the above tag is disputed". It's useful and it serves a genuine purpose. The circumstances Amgine mentions are one example. Tags do get disputed and whatever should happen, that's the reality. There's a real benefit to having a way to say "I am leaving that tag for now but I do disagree" in order to avoid an edit war. FT2 23:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Confusing and unnecessary. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep In lieu of responsibility to the community and the accuracy of our work, some individuals will use tags as a means of silencing or derailing information. Unless I am missing something, this circumstance is not well addressed by other means. As the topic's importance increases, the likelihood of this mendacious behavior occuring increases. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Not in use" is not a reason to delete; "seems extremely limited" is just your own POV and not true. It's quite a useful template, and I'd even go so far it's just as necessary to have this one as it is to have templates for NPOV disputes etc. -- Schnee 23:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - POV disputes often (usually?) involve an argument over whether there's any POV issue at all. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I'm not completly convinced by its usefulness, I don't see a reason to delete the template. Let's wait a bit and see if it will be useful. --Conti|✉ 23:43, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I am definitely convinced. CheeseDreams 00:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I definitely think this template has some merit. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Decision: 3 for deletion, 1 unsure, 7 to keep. Template is kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Template:Pub-stub - Not useful. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 10:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Rubbish it's very usefull, pubs are and important part of the social fabric of the UK. Their importance needs to be documented both indivdually and as a group.--Jirate 14:09, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
 * Jirate, is there a project on pubs, or even a group of people who will be adding to these articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. However it is inevitable that some Pubs will be added anyway and by having the stub it would atleast give some idea what is expected.--Jirate 14:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
 *  Delete -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Template:Del

 * redirects to Template:Delete. Some shortcuts are overkill. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * Keep, saves typing 3 characters which accumulates to a lot of time on RC patrol (sorry for the late vote, perhaps this could stay around a bit longer to give others the chance to give their opinion). --fvw *  14:10, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant. jni 12:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily duplicated delete on del so the TFD header can be added. With any luck that'll catch enough attention to finally get this decided with an appropriate number of votes for a so oft-used template. --fvw *  14:09, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * keep, obviously. The redundancy is good, folks use it and it makes life easier for them.  Dunc|☺ 14:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just used it. Why make everyone type the extra "ete" whenever they find junk? Dave6 08:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful. Estel (talk) 13:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep When I found out this link existed, I wondered why I hadn't bene using it before. Saves loads of time on long patrols [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:05, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * keep - useful, and just might be even better -  exists, right?  --User:Whosyourjudas


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Virginians

this category is a duplicate of the People from West Virgina category Xpendersx 03:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Pete Herman

Pete Herman (February 12, 1896 – April 13, 1973) was one of the all-time great bantamweight world champions. An American of Italian heritage and descent, Herman was born Peter Gulotta in New Orleans, Louisiana, and fought from 1912 until 1927. He retired with a record of 69 wins (19 by KO), 11 losses, 8 draws and 61 no-decisions in 149 bouts. His managers were Jerome Gargano, Doc Cutch, Sammy Goldman and Red Walsh. Nat Fleisher, Ring Magazine editor and founder, impressively rated Herman as the #2 best all time bantamweight.

Early life
Herman was born on February 12, 1896, in Convent, Louisiana, to a family of Italian descent.

Boxing career
Herman fought his first professional fight around 1912 at age 16. According to boxing lore, Herman earned some of his living as a "bootblack" or shoe shine before making it as a boxer. Two years after his first bout, he held his own during a 10-round, no-decision bout against World bantamweight champion Kid Williams on June 20, 1914, at the Pelican Stadium in New Orleans, though losing the bout in the opinion of the local Times-Picayune.

Herman was a smooth boxer and great body puncher, particularly skilled at inside fighting. He defeated San Franciscan Eddie Campi on September 13, 1914, in a twenty-round points decision in New Orleans.

In his first eighteen bouts, between September 1912 and July 1913, his only loss was to Johnny Fisse on points. He later drew on his loss to Fisse on September 29, 1913, fighting him again in Memphis, Tennessee, and making Fisse his most frequent career opponent.

Bouts with Eddie Coulon
On December 13, 1915, Herman defeated fellow New Orleans boxer Eddie Coulon in a fourth-round knockout in New Orleans. Both boxers weighed 116 pounds, but Coulon had a $3 1/2$-inch reach advantage. Herman had faced Coulon twice in his early career on September 30, and October 21, 1912, in two six-round draws in New Orleans. He defeated Coulon on September 1, 1913, in Memphis, Tennessee, in an eight-round points decision.

Herman lost to the great New York Jewish boxer Lew Tendler on February 28, 1916, at the Olympia Club in Philadelphia in a six-round newspaper decision. Tendler would later meet the greatest boxers of his era including the lightweight champion Benny Leonard in several bouts.

On June 12, 1916, he defeated Frankie Brown, New York bantamweight, in New Orleans in a fifteen-round points decision. He had drawn with Brown three months earlier in Baltimore in another fifteen round bout.

World Bantamweight Champion, 1917
In their fourth meeting, Herman finally won the title from Kid Williams on January 9, 1917, in a twenty-round points decision in New Orleans, even though Williams was allowed to pick his own referee for the match, Bill Rocap. Herman scored knockdowns in the fifth and twelfth. Though Williams was the aggressor throughout the fight, Herman had little trouble dodging the former champion's blows. Due to Williams' aggressive style of boxing in the bout, many ringside believed he had won more of the rounds than Herman.

Knocking out Johnny Coulon
On May 14, 1917, Herman defeated Johnny Coulon in a third-round technical knockout at Lakeside Auditorium in Racine, Wisconsin. Halfway through the third, Coulon was down for a count of nine from a right swing to the jaw by Herman, not long after coming out of a clinch. After Coulon rose, the referee stopped the fight, as Coulon still seemed woozy. Herman had a nine-pound weight advantage, and a two-inch reach advantage. Coulon was seven years older at twenty-eight, which may have made a difference in the fight. Coulon had formerly held and lost the World Bantamweight Title.

Marriage to Annie LeBlanc, November 1917
On the evening of November 4, 1917, Herman was married to Annie LeBlanc, whom he had known since he was a child in New Orleans. The following day Herman defeated Frankie Burns in a twenty-round points decision at Louisiana Auditorium in New Orleans in what a few sources considered a title bout. Herman was scheduled to have reported for service in the US Army after the bout. Herman did not have great difficulty amassing enough points to win the bout. Burns had a difficult time in the first three rounds and was staggered by Herman in the second. Burns may have evened the fighting in the seventeenth round.

Herman previously suffered a thirteenth-round technical knockout from burns in November 1914 in the same city. Herman did not box from late December until May 1918, and may have been in military training. In March 1918, the US Navy refused Herman furloughs to box until he had achieved three months of active duty.

On December 14, 1917, Herman won with a third-round technical knockout against Frankie Mason, in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In the second round, Mason was knocked to the canvas for the first time in his career.

On May 23, 1919, he defeated Johnny "Kewpie" Ertle in Minneapolis, in a fifth-round technical knockout. The deciding blow was a strong left to the jaw. Ertle had previously been down for a count of eight in the fourth, but was saved by the bell.

He defeated Chicago bantamweight Johnny Ritchie on January 7, 1920, in an eighth-round technical knockout at Tulane Stadium in New Orleans. After a knockdown in the eighth, Ritchie arose still staggering, and the fight was stopped by the referee. Herman had won the bout with ease.

Loss of Bantamweight title
In the late evening of December 22, 1920, Herman lost his bantamweight title in Madison Square Garden to Joe Lynch in a fifteen-round unanimous decision. In a decisive bout, the El Paso Herald gave Lynch ten rounds with four for Herman. Lynch used to advantage his superior height and a four-inch advantage in reach. Only a day after the bout, Herman sailed for London to face Jimmy Wilde.

Bout with Jimmy Wilde
Herman's most memorable match was fought against Jimmy Wilde, the legendary Welsh Flyweight World Champion.

The Wilde-Herman fight was staged on January 13, 1921, at Royal Albert Hall in London, and resulted in a seventeenth-round technical knockout for Herman. The former bantamweight champion used his weight advantage and body punching to wear down Wilde, the still reigning Flyweight champ. Herman hurt Wilde in the 15th when the fighting was fierce against the ropes, and knocked him through the ropes three times in the 17th round to end the fight. The classy Wilde made no excuses. He stated after the fight "I can sincerely say that Herman beat me because he was the better boxer." Many gave Wilde the first five rounds, but Herman came back particularly strong in the fifteenth, until he ended the bout in the seventeenth. The exciting match brought an impressive crowd of around 10,000, including the Prince of Wales.

On July 11, 1921, Herman defeated British Bantamweight Champion Jim Higgins in an eleventh-round knockout at the Highland Park Ring in London. Herman won every round but the eighth, when Higgins delivered a blow to the chin of Herman. Herman took the match with a right hook to the jaw of Higgins, after which, according to one source, Higgins was down for a full five minutes. Most of the bout was described as in-fighting.

Regaining Bantamweight title
On July 25, 1921, Herman fought Joe Lynch in a rematch for the World bantamweight title in New York's storied Ebbets Field. Both boxers weighed in at $116 3/4$ pounds. The Scranton Republican and other sources gave Herman 13 of the 15 rounds, with only the eleventh to Lynch and the second even. Herman's decisive win on points fueled speculation that he had thrown the first fight. Herman forced the fighting, taking the lead from the opening bell using both left and right effectively. At the time, Herman was one of the few fighters ever to regain a lost title.

On September 5, 1921, Herman defeated French boxer Charles LeDoux at Louisiana Stadium in New Orleans in a tenth-round newspaper decision. According to multiple sources, Herman had a shade better of the no-decision bout, particularly among the local sportswriters.

Loss of second Bantamweight title
He lost the World Bantamweight Championship for the second time on September 23, 1921, when he was outpointed by Johnny Buff in a fifteen-round title match at Madison Square Garden. Buff took ten rounds employing lightning speed, with only four rounds for his opponent. Herman put Buff on the canvas only once very briefly in the fourth round with a right to the jaw. For most of the bout, Herman had trouble using his often powerful right effectively. By the fifteenth round Buff was able to freely reign most of his blows on Herman. Having a very slight advantage in reach, and a four-pound weight disadvantage, Buff won on points by a sizable margin. Buff was fighting at nearly thirty while Herman was only 25. Buff had taken the American Flyweight Championship previously.

Losing vision
Herman had begun losing sight in one eye, and he claimed to have been nearly blind in that eye by April 1921, well before he fought Buff. He fought five more times, knocking out number one contender Packy O'Gatty in one round at the Rink Sporting Club in Brooklyn, on December 9, 1921. O'Gatty went down two minutes and fourteen seconds into the first round from an overhand right to the jaw. Herman previously landed a strong right uppercut to the jaw of O'Gatty that had rattled him earlier in the round. The crowd at the Rink Club in Brooklyn was not large, filling only about half the seats. Herman claimed after the bout he hoped to get a title match again with Johnny Buff, but that Buff would not consent to meet him. Considering Herman's impending loss of vision, his retirement was probably a wise choice.

Herman retired in 1922 after winning a ten-round bout on points with Roy Moore in Boston on April 24.

Life after boxing
According to one source, Herman's investments were made wisely on the advice of a friend, B. S. D'Antoni, though Herman retired before the great depression. His earnings in 1921 were estimated at $200,000.

He eventually became completely blind. After his retirement from the ring, he owned and operated a club in the New Orleans French Quarter. Pete Herman's was a popular New Orleans landmark. He was appointed to an honorary position with the New Orleans Boxing Commission in the 1920s. He appeared as himself in one movie, New Orleans Uncensored.

On April 13, 1973, Herman died in a New Orleans hospital after failing health and a fall that broke his hip the previous month. Funeral services were held on April 16.

Herman was elected into the Boxing Hall of Fame in 1959. He was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1997. He was also a member of the Louisiana and New Orleans Sports Hall of Fame.

Professional boxing record
All information in this section is derived from BoxRec, unless otherwise stated.

Official record
All newspaper decisions are officially regarded as “no decision” bouts and are not counted in the win/loss/draw column.

Unofficial record
Record with the inclusion of newspaper decisions in the win/loss/draw column. f

title: Pete Herman


text:
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/December 2004

Template:Biology

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

Template:SwissEFTA

 * (and related Template talk:SwissEFTA, MediaWiki:SwissEFTA, MediaWiki talk:SwissEFTA) - Unused, and seems to have been replaced with Template:EFTA.  -- Netoholic @ 05:21, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Agree. Delete. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:La Francophonie

 * (and related Template talk:La Francophonie, MediaWiki:La Francophonie, MediaWiki talk:La Francophonie) Unused, looks like it was abandoned and replaced with "Members" section in Francophony. -- Netoholic @ 06:26, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Template:Ilcomment

 * (and related Template talk:Ilcomment, MediaWiki:Ilcomment, MediaWiki talk:Ilcomment) - Unused, and really will never be.  The entire content is   .  -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Only sensical with subst:. Delete. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Gnunote

 * (and related Template talk:Gnunote, MediaWiki:Gnunote, MediaWiki talk:Gnunote) - Looks like this is redundant now with built-in text from Special:Allmessages (like MediaWiki:copyright. Useless as a template by itself. -- Netoholic @ 07:31, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Fylke

 * (and related Template talk:Fylke, MediaWiki:Fylke, MediaWiki talk:Fylke) - Unused, and replaced with Category:Counties of Norway. -- Netoholic @ 07:37, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Template:Communitypage

 * (and related Template talk:Communitypage, MediaWiki:Communitypage, MediaWiki talk:Communitypage) - Unused, early predecessor to Community Portal. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Template:Behavior

 * (and related Template talk:Behavior, MediaWiki:Behavior, MediaWiki talk:Behavior) -  Used in only one article of the "series". -- Netoholic @

Template:Ugly math
I don't see the point of slapping this hideous orange box on top of articles that the reader can already tell are full of difficult and abstract math, and the link to a less complex article which it provides could just as easily be handled with an ordinary cross-reference. —No-One Jones 00:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete with extreme prejudice - as NOJ said, and POV too. --Whosyourjudas\talk 00:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, but it does raise the issue that math articles need a good explanation. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV. If an article is too highbrow, don't tag it -- list it on a relevant Wikiproject (math, crypto, etc.) talk page and/or fix it yourself.  CryptoDerk 02:39, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep IF reworded. Although I agree it needs rewording, the issue is quite common, people who write technically at times dont explain well. Maybe a more general "this is technically poorly explained and needs to be rewritten" instead? FT2 21:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and reword as necessary. Linking to a different article is very helpful if the reader will have no chance of understanding the current article.  -- ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ] 21:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, preferably with some rewording --TexasDex 22:18, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * What? Even if it would be reworded, its title is still POV. The fact that the article is full of cryptic formulas doesn't mean that the math involved is "ugly". The whole concept of that template must be changed and it would be better if we just delete this one. Grue 07:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely hilarious. Delete. —Ashley Y 15:43, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stating an article needs cleanup is a point of view, as is stating it's not NPOV. These are not valid reasons for deleting those templates. Pure lumps of mathematics are not good encyclopedia copy; check the two articles it's listed on. That kind of stuff needs a honking big orange box. I'd be willing to agree to removing the formula at the top even though I think it adds a certain charm. --fvw *  17:38, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
 * Keep, but reword. I think categorization is good, so why not categorize the "cleanup" messages? Nevertheless, it certainly needs some cleanup itself — when I first saw it I thought it was vandalism! --Pt 23:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - I swear, Eequor acts so randomly sometimes. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 * keep with super, extreme prejudice I can't begin to count the number of >$100 texts that are poorly written mathematically and I'm talking graduate level texts here. To think wikipedia can't suffer the same fate is putting on rose-colored glasses.  I don't agree with the method this template gets the point across, but that can easily be solved by rewriting it.  Once again I find wikipedians are quick to delete something that just takes a bit of time to improve.  Has nothing to do with highbrow, abstract, or difficult math, just poor authorship. So keep and reword. If this gets deleted I'm putting Template:Attention & Template:Cleanup up for vfd because they are no different than Template:Ugly math in terms of functionality.  This template just points out the mathemematics need attention and not the whole article. Cburnett 18:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but saying $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty 1/k^2 = 1$$ is not "poorly written", especially if just because you don't get it. Not all math is easy to understand, but rewriting it won't make it better.  It's just inherently complex - and not ugly.  If you don't feel that math can be beautiful, I'm sorry; but tagging it with this won't help.  --Whosyourjudas\talk 20:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever saying that so stop playing straw man with it like I did. Beauty, confusion, and eloquence are three seperate, distinct descriptions.  What you might consider beautiful could be nothing but uneloquent and extremely confusing.  The point is that it could be written better to improve the general understanding of what is being conveyed and the eloquence of doing so.  Mathematics is entirely about representing ideas through symbols and there's plenty of margin in there to say the same thing in many different ways of varying beauty and eloquence. This template, rewritten, points out that the mathematical symbols on this page could be better explained or rewritten. The goal is not to create pages full of mathematical equations, beautiful or not, in an obfuscated way.  This template points out such pages that can be rewritten in more eloquent ways. Anyone who uses it to point out something they don't understand is inappropriately using the template, which is your apparent claim for deleting this template. This is no different than using Template:Attention on a subject you don't understand, but you'ven't put it up for vfd. Cburnett 20:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you read the template itself - and the name of the template - it says that the math on this page is ugly. Perhaps - perhaps - if it was greatly reworded and renamed I could stand it - but right now the template is not for pages that "can be rewritten".  As it stands now it says the math is "ugly" and that the contributor of the template does not understand it - it is "incomprehensible".  Why else would it say "if you understand"? - if the contributor understood he would fix it himself, not tag it.  The template was made for articles that are beyond the understanding of the reader, not poorly written.  They don't need rewriting, they need a primer.  My point with my above comment was not to misinterpret anything you said - it was to state that the equation I used is beyond the understanding of some people, but it wouldn't deserve an "ugly math" tag by your interpretation of the tag - it's neither poorly written nor ineloquent, it's just how you write it.  --Whosyourjudas\talk 22:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speculation about the creator and his word choice is really a waste of time. All but two keep votes have explicitly said to reword it, which essentially nullifies your "beef" with it. Cburnett 03:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not speculating, I'm reading what the template says - "ugly", "if you understand", and "incomprehenisble". A simple rewrite won't cut it - the template needs to be moved to a NPOV name and redone from the ground up as a cleanup tag, not as a "oh man I don't get this math so I'm gonna go read a different article" tag.  --03:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason for deleting a proper cleanup template. jni 10:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but reword - Same exact reason as Cburnett states. Hoekenheef 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This template is a horrible flamebait. Its name is a flamebait, too. -- Naive cynic 11:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid cleanup template. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, barring a rewrite from scratch. We already have for cases like this, not to mention BJAODN... it might be an idea to start up subject-specific cleanup tags in the same way we have for stubs, though. J.K. 08:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice.  or something might be useful, but not a template the name of which is, as Naive cynic points out, flamebait. —Tkinias 22:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice. as others have said, maybe something reworked and renamed would be good, but as it is, its quite POV -- Mairi 04:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The name of the template is not appropriate, and so are its contents. --Bernard Helmstetter 18:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rewrite. — Oven Fresh ☺  22:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Remove edit request or Delete. A request for users to edit the page is a clear self-reference that won't make any sense on paper or in mirrors. It's totally okay to point to a more casual treatment, and I appreciate the name as humour, but the request must go, unless this tag will only be used for short cleanup periods. Deco 09:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This title and the attendant description are both somewhat offensive (if accurate) and possibly over-specific. I propose deleting this in favor of Template:cleanup-technical. -- Beland 12:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - no attempt has been made by the author or any other editor to first reword this into something less insulting, and second, to move it to a better title. -- Netoholic @ 14:56, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
 * Delete, the other template looks better, but perhaps the background color should be less dark. Category "Incomprehensible pages" should also be deleted. Grue 16:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ruhrjung 21:36, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
 * Delete and ban the troll who created it. Neutralitytalk 22:43, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * whoa - there is already a listing of this template above. please pick one!  until the above is cleared, we shouldn't require that the reword be done.  give it a week or two, then re-submit if it hasn't been cleaned.  --Whosyourjudas\talk 03:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, again, though I prefer the orange background to the current blue. Also, don't list TfD's this close together, wait at least a few months in between, just like VfD. --fvw *  03:56, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've changed it a bit. — Oven Fresh ☺  00:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:D

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

Template:Otheruses1

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

Template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Women

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

 * Ill use of template system. This needs to be a category and a list-of article - David Gerard 01:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'''If this doesn't get converted to category in another week, I'm going to just skip to the deletion part. This is absurd.''' Snowspinner 01:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've converted it to a category. This may have been a while coming, but I don't think it's fair to threaten deletion of the original template creator's work on those grounds. We are all volunteers, and everything will get done eventually. — MikeX (talk) 07:41, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I get testy around the six month mark, sorry. :) Snowspinner 22:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hetman
Comment: I don't see any consensus here. Besides, how do you convert to categories these hetmans without their own article? Grue 12:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oversized monstrosity of a template. Maybe split into 4, by its four current sections, but better off just being left as the category it includes.  --Whosyourjudas\talk 03:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep.--Emax 04:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * reason being?--Jiang
 * Agreed. First preference: Convert to categories, Second preference: Split this into four. Monstrous --Jiang 05:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Categorise Halibutt 07:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like it - yes, it is big, but not a monstrosity, and I find it useful. Although it could be split into four smaller templates, one for each hetman category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to article. Much too big. Imagine if the text were blown up to a size where people with poor eyesight could actually read it — it would cover pages. The organization is great, but put it at normal size in its own article and link to it to save on real estate. Deco 10:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There's already a full list at the bottom of Hetmans of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It needn't be repeated on every article.  —Michael Z. 20:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Template:Toomanyboxes
BJAODN. Vacuum c 17:36, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form, it's genuinely funny on user pages and the like --BesigedB 22:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved page to a subpage of User:SPUI as that user was the only one using it, and it doesn't belong in the mainspace. Vacuum c 00:42, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hah, I wasn't even the one to create it. Thanks. --SPUI 00:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've reverted the page move to user's space. That's not proper procedure. Let the vote finish. -- Netoholic @ 01:05, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Then why can VfD's be speedied before the vote has finished? Vacuum c 03:14, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Experimentation of Preliminary deletion, I beleive. Or the article was a genuine WP:CSD candidate in the first place --BesigedB 00:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to BJAODN --fvw *  04:01, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * shouldnt you be nominating the other pastel shaded boxes that accompany this one? we dont wan't to shoot the cop when pursued by a gang of bandits. good template. --Jiang 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! Great amusement value! -- Naive cynic 11:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha... it's a pastel box against pastel boxes. Move to BJAODN. Deco 11:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * BJAODN!!! - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, of course -- J.K. 11:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Hey, all, it's in a non-article namespace, we can afford to keep jokes there. And this is a really, really, really, good one. (In fact, I'm tempted to create some sock-puppets to I can vote to keep it. Hmm, that's not such a bad idea - it will give me a chance to do some actual article work, instead of all the janitor cruft admins wind up doing! :-) Noel (talk) 21:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to BJAODN. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News  00:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Terrorism

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

Template:-

 * Entire text of this is '''

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

Template:HSR
Convert to category and delete. Neutrality/talk 01:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree. Into Category:Homestar Runner characters, as subcat of Category:Homestar Runner. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 01:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of these articles are already in Category:Homestar Runner. I don't see a strict need to create yet another new category. I'd say just make sure all the pages using this template are in Category:Homestar Runner.  Oh, and delete the redirect at MediaWiki:HSR, too. -- Netoholic @ 08:11, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
 * Why? It's a handy way to look at the characters and navigate between the different articles w/o looking at the category over and over. (Keep)  Fishal 00:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Cburnett 03:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. - I agree with point Fishal makes. It is a quick and easy way to navigate between the different characters. Hoekenheef 20:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I agree with the above comment. Now there are more keep votes than delete votes.
 * Diff shows this vote was by User:Wins oddf (Cburnett 03:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC))

 * Keep, but Rename -- I don't mind the use of the template tools to help better organize a category, but "HSR" is an abbreviation that may cause conflict in the future. I would suggest moving the template to Template:HomestarChar or something that's relatively simple but unique. --Alexwcovington 23:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexwcovington. Keep but rename.—Boarder8925 04:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Fishal - it is a very handy way of navigating through the Homestar Runner characters.  --[[User:Mr. Strong Bad|Mr. Strong Bad/ wp talk ]] 04:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vacuum c 17:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. — Oven Fresh ☺  17:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Otherplaces

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

Template:TempUndelete
This forms the basis of a particularly condescending and destructive response to Requests for undeletion. Deliberately blanking and protecting undeleted articles is a terrible idea.
 * Delete. ‣ ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ] 21:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Constructive way to make a deleted article's history available for review by non-sysops without clouding the issue of its status. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be useful. jni 09:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Permission
Usage of this template for an image is the same grounds for Possibly unfree images because of non-free license. Images that are put up under a non-free license is grounds for deletion of the image, so it makes sense to delete a template that is bound to an image being under a non-free license. I guess I'm also starting this as consideration of deleting all images that use this template since they presumably are under non-free licenses, which is grounds for delete. Cburnett 19:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jimbo has stated that all images will eventually be deleted, unless they can be found to be released under a free license. However, he also stated that we should not (yet) go around deleting these images at this time. This temlate allows them to be tagged for the time being. It could be very useful as well. Some people who gave permission to only Wikipedia would be willing to license under the GFDL (rather than see the pictures not used at all) if someone asks. This template puts them all in a category to be easily seen and processed.    – Quadell (talk) (help)a|   22:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Quadell said. --Whosyourjudas\talk 23:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Quadell said. --Evil Monkey → Talk 05:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's take a f'rinstance - a real case. I have a photo of myself on my user page. The person who took the photo has allowed me to use it there, but has not granted permission for others to use it. Therefore the "Permission" template is exactly what I need in those circumstances. I'm sure mine is not an isolated case in this regard.  Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|30px|]] 10:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Quadell, et al, Jimbo is not the only one using this template: Image:Bengalgirls.jpg, Image:Lanc.250pix.jpg, Image:Gloster.glad.649pix.jpg, etc. By the rules of wikipedia it says these images should be deleted because they are under a non-free license.  Permission only to wikipedia is not a free license, ergo Quadell's point is moot.  Keep because it violates the rules????  What's this new madness? Cburnett 17:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And in case you guys didn't look, the first image has been here since July 2002 and the last two have been since April 2003. Clearly, these aren't being used for "the time being" but as permanent licenses.  The template is promoting (or, in the least, providing a solution) the use of non-free images. Cburnett 17:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep until there are no images for which it is applicable. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neutralitytalk 19:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't be ridiculous. You don't delete templates that are very widely used and critical in capturing a class of images that we need to focus on. That would just make it impossible to find them, and would also neglect our responsibility to inform readers that the image is not free. Deco 10:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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