Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Not deleted/March 2005

Template:Substub

An article should be either a stub or a speedy deletion candidate. This template is instruction creep, and should not have been created in the first place. →Raul654 18:38, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, And while you're at it, get rid of all the other stubs too. Yes they provide nice categorization but at the cost of server resources. {{stub}} should be more than enough for any article in my humble opinion. Inter 18:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It is large categories with too many articles (such as Category:stub) that cause a large hit on database performance. The stub category grew to be so huge, and such a drag on the servers, that it was removed from the Template:Stub for a long time (there are currently over 15,000 articles with the stub template). According to one of the developers, User:Jamesday, the goal for the developers is to have each category under 500 articles, and having the stub category divided into topic stubs is beneficial. BlankVerse ∅ 21:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with BlankVerse. The stub subcategories are far less of a drain on the servers than having one big stub category. And it makes the stubs easier for editors to find. Grutness|^hello?
Delete. Presents a POV which happens to run counter to Wikipedia deletion policy as generally understood. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia is filled with very stubby articles that don't quite fit the criteria for Speedy Deletion. Unfortunately (again), way too many of those articles would never reach a consensus for deletion if put though the VfD process (and would swamp VfD if anyone actually started nominating a large percentage of the 3,000+ substubs). Many of the substubs are good "merge and redirect" candidates, but until that happens (or someone changes the substub into a topic stub), it is probably best to leave them as substubs. BlankVerse ∅ 21:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. James F. (talk) 22:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Though I agree that substub is a useless distinction, I vote keep - for now. However, I also vote that mention of substub be removed from Wikipedia's "How to" pages for newbies and from its lists of templates. Having those articls available for stub sorting is very useful - to delete the template would consign those articles to the unfindable void (unless they are all changed to stub - a huge drain on servers). Far more useful is to somehow keep those items available and discourage people from using the template (at least in part by hiding it). Significantly reduce the number of articles in Category:Substub, then we can kill the template. Grutness|^hello? 00:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - some articles are most definitely substubs. Can't agree with deleting this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - can we say "don't shoot the messenger?" --Joy [shallot] 00:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. ✏ OvenFresh ² 03:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep - Stubs need to be distinct from substubs. Andros 1337 03:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A stub is a stub is a stub. Snowspinner 06:17, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep this, but delete every other stub type as unneeded clutter. - SimonP 06:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Need something for "worse than a stub". --Henrygb 10:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A stub is a stub. Categorised stubs (e.g. Template:Bio-stub) are useful for people interested in a subject area, but this isn't - David Gerard 13:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is a grey area between stubs and CSDs. Expand the definition of either set first, preferably by deleting few thousand random substubs, and I reconsider this vote. jni 17:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As Henrygb mentions, something for "worse than a stub" makes articles that are very short be more likely to be expanded. I see no reason why articles can't be listed as (eg) both Actor-stub and Sub-stub. — OwenBlacker 19:34, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Since I became aware of this vote (earlier today) I've been flipping through the sub-stubs and finding that a) very many can be categorized to existing stub categories other than general-stub, b) very many could, in fact, be merged into larger articles (or stubs) that already exist, and c) as pointed out before, few meet the speedy deletion criteria. In my opinion, the best fate for a sub-stub that is not a candidate for speedy delete is a merge into a larger article or stub rather than re-categorization. However, the number is so vast that this isn't immediately practical, unfortunately Courtland 19:37, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
- Comment: the number is currently just over 3000, and I'm trying to drop that by about 20 a day. Very few new substubs seem to be being tagged - either that or, like stub, the template has been "de-coupled" from the category. Grutness|^hello?
Delete - does not help with classification as other stub subcategories do. -Sean Curtin 00:49, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This has been discussed to death on Wikipedia talk:Substub for months already... Anyway a lot of stubs seem pretty complete compared to some of the articles listed here. Ideally all the substubs would become full articles (or merged or deleted as is appropriate). However that's unrealistic in the short term. For now I'd probably favor categorized articles. Category:Substubs already recommends interest related stubs over the use of sub and substub. If we're talking about dumping hundreds (thousands) of articles into the general stubs category, then I still have to say the split will help. These articles probably need more attention than the average stub anyway. --Sketchee 06:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All substubs could either be: merged, deleted, tagged as a stub, moved to Wiktionary, etc. No need for yet another type of stub. --jag123 20:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. When I see a substub, I know that I should add information to it (if I can) with a certain amount of urgency. When I see a stub, I think, okay, whatever, it's not a complete article yet, no big deal. There's quite a difference — a stub is maybe a decent short paragraph, while a substub might be a sentence fragment. QuartierLatin1968 15:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per QuartierLatin1968's comments. Thryduulf 17:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. Alphax ^τεχ 06:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
keep 500LL 21:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -Frazzydee|✍ 05:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A request

If the vote is for delete, I would like to request that I be able to compile a list of the articles in the category before the template is removed from them, in order to keep the names of these 3100 articles available to the stub-sorting project. Grutness|^hello? 12:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the event of a final delete decision, I think there would be enough people to actually put together a WikiProject aimed at depopulating the template; the task is large enough, I would think. Or am I misinterpreting the scope and purpose of WikiProjects in general? I certainly wouldn't suggest the template being deleted prior to a "major offensive" of this type. Courtland 00:03, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Template:reproductive system

Delete. Redundant, all articles already in category. Neutrality^talk 00:41, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think that this template is a good example of how a navigational template can work better than a See also section, or using Categories. It covers a reasonable number of closely related articles without being too large, and it nicely divides the articles into those for the female and male reproductive systems. I also think that a navigational template is appropriate for this particular topic since many of the people who are looking up information on one part of the reproductive system will then want to move on to look at information on another part of the reproductive system. BlankVerse ∅ 04:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is actually a good example of how to use these templates. →Raul654 21:22, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:35, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV. Snowspinner 04:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

What is POV about this template, Snowspinner? I'm obviously missing something. Courtland 21:18, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Keep Is handy and compact. Also, here is solution to POV problem: add third line for any Intersex issues. WpZurp 05:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful and stated problems are eminently fixable - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep excellent example of this type of template. Thryduulf 23:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not really comparible to a category. This seems much more intuitive alternative for browsing, IMHO. If it is POV, edit it. --Sketchee 00:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Modify. See my comments in Template_talk:Reproductive_system Courtland 21:20, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Template:Sectstub

No no no! We do not need to marking individual sections as stubs. Articles are stubs, not sections. Dump this nonsense. →Raul654 15:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit of a misnomer, but I think we do need a template to mark sections for expansion (but only one). Move/Merge to Template:Expandsect. -- Netoholic @ 15:36, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
Comments: Actually there are currently four templates for inadequate article sections since Template:Stubsection redirects to Template:Expandsect, and there is also Template:Sect-stub (which requires a section #). There should be only one, but both Template:Sectstub and Template:Expandsect leave much to be desired. Template:Expandsect, for example, links to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, although none of the articles that I looked at that used the template were listed on that page (and it is probably inappropriate to list just sections there anyway). That template is also way too wordy so it is usually larger than the rest of the text in the section it is put into. On the other hand, I think that the graphic included with Template:Sectstub calls too much attention to the notice to itself and should be further shrunk or removed from the template. In my opinion, there should probably a new template (Template:Expandsection ? — an easier to remember name), with wording something like: "note: this article section should be expanded. You can help Wikipedia by editing it.". Also, this notice should always be put at the bottom of the section instead of at the top where most of the current ones are located. BlankVerse ∅ 21:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think your suggestions are good, and you should feel free to adjust Template:Expandsect (in other words, creating a fifth template "expandsection" seems unnecessary). -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
More comments: I've started wondering about the utility of any of the four section-stub/expand templates. Where you would think that they would be mostly likely be used is for articles using a common format with predetermined sections (countries, cities, computer game characters, etc.), but in almost all of those articles the empty section(s) are just left blank with no template added. However, I think that is a good enough indicator of here is a section that needs to be filled out that it doesn't need any other notice (although those articles should probably get a category added to help those Wikipedia editors who like to the grunt work of fixing articles with problems—something like Category:City article with empty section). For all of the other articles with inadequate sections, it would be much better to explain the problem in more detail, saying what is missing and what should be done in a ToDo list on the article's Talk page. Occasionally it might be nice to have a notice on the article's Main page (something like: "note: this article section should be expanded. Please see this article's [Talk page].", but in most cases even that is not needed. I can also envision too many Wikipedia editors just adding that template without adding the ToDo information on the Talk page. My current opinion, then, is to delete all four section-stub/expand templates. BlankVerse ∅ 20:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merging with the expansion template is okay, but it shouldn't be deleted altogether. Marking inadequate sections as such is a good thing. --Joy [shallot] 00:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bad idea. Delete - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep of merge with one of the similar templates. --SPUI (talk) 18:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A short section (e.g. history, economy, etc.) of an article that can be expanded should be marked so others can know. Tony Jin 22:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rephrase to something like: This section needs expanding and/or improvement. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lived

Simply puts in the births and deaths category - much better to just add the two categories (this doesn't simplify things at all). violet/riga (t) 17:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Agree completely. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
Delete - 100% agreement; we know someone has lived if they were born and did something that was notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as an article or piece of an article. I'm implying that if someone is put in the births or deaths category that they should appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Courtland 18:36, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Keep. I misinterpreted the usage. It is useful as a way of adding two categories at once, one for birth and one for death. Apologies for the reversal in vote. Courtland 02:40, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Delete not necessary. Categories aren't hard. This template results in ludicrities such as Category:44 BC deaths. These work far better as decade or century links (i.e. Category:1st century BC births. Makes the categories actually useful. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 18:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I do understand the inefficiency of creating categories of death years that contain one person. However, there seems to be no reason why one cannot accomodate the broader year spans; maybe someone who has used it in that way could comment. Courtland 02:40, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- I can't understand why this template results in the alleged problem. Deleting it will do nothing to stop anyone putting any year into a single Category field.Saga City 09:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - Deleting wouldn't stop people using ridiculous (IMO) categories, but it would make their automation far quicker. Not deleting would encourage it. I concede the usefulness argument, but I would say that using it with subst: is essential. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 23:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It doesn't harm anybody. Gerritholl 21:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep It does simplify things, it provides a quick and easy way to add the births and deaths category and the sorting all in one line, and by listing the sort key exactly once for both categories, reduces the number of keystrokes and possibility for error. slambo 23:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Helpfulness" in this sense is being defined as helpful for the editor, not helpful for the user. I think it is the latter sense which is meant by the "helpful" criteria at the top of the page. An editor has the choice not to use this template, and in fact most don't. Nothing grave is affected either way, and I don't see any reason for providing multiple routes to solve any given problem. Given that a large amount of pages use this template, clearly some editors find it useful to use. As I can see no negative reason for using it, I don't see any good reason to delete it. Furthermore, given the number of pages which use it, I think that deleting it would cause more difficulty in replacing the categories on the affected pages than would ever be saved by getting rid of it (and I have a hard time seeing why it is "much better" to do it the other way. More direct, perhaps, but who cares? Does it affect anything much? I'm not sure it does). --Fastfission 03:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep A useful shortcut, I use it all the time. Why make me type more? The reader doesn't care how I accomplished things, but I do. Fawcett5 05:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Handy for editors, and at some point in the future someone might come up with other clever things to do with the birth/death year information. The fact that it's being filtered through a template like this allows said clever thing to be easily implemented across the board. Bryan 07:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep It is an extremely useful shortcut to allow addition of two categories at once, one for birth year and one for death year.Saga City 09:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It performs exactly the function of a template, which is to allow similar information to be entered and processed in a uniform fashion: in particular it ensures that a given person's entries in the categories for thei birth & death years are uniform. --Phil | Talk 11:15, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if only because I use it. You don't have to enter the sort twice this way. (I admit, I often forget to put a sort key on people categories since nonpeople cats don't usually need it.) :) --Sketchee 21:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Bryan and Phil. --Carnildo 07:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep for easy addition of the categories by editors, even though I favor converting the templates periodically to categories by bot. -- User:Docu
Keep, very useful. Dan100 12:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, but there should be a guideline somewhere (at least on the talk: page) requesting that it only be input as {{subst:lived|whatever}}; otherwise it's a resource drain. -Sean Curtin 18:22, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, helpful. JYolkowski 20:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very usefull. I've used it alot and like it. And as a template it might make future changes in birth/death apperance possible, for instance by including images/symbols or things like that in the bios. Shanes 00:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Given that there are concerns for the servers with the number of articles any particular template is attached to, how will they be affected by an - albeit very useful - template like this, which could be used on thousands of articles? Grutness|^hello? 11:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There is a slight marginal hit associated with using any template. The concerns voiced refer to a situation where a template, used by a lot of articles, is edited, because the system then has to invalidate any cached versions of the containing pages. This template is stable (it has been edited exactly once since creation and that was the addition of the {{tfd}} tag) and therefore should not give rise to such a problem. What I don't understand is that the very idea of creating the template system in the first place was to allow zillions of article containing common text to all use the same template and be kept consistent: this is now being described as a problem. --Phil | Talk 14:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If you don't like the fact that the article has the template, you can always add subst: to it forcing it to include the article text INTO the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but should only really be used with subst.
Keep, a useful shortcut and it helps to remind people to include a sort key on categories, which is easily forgotten. —User:Mulad (talk) 00:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unencyclopedic

A somewhat abused POV-based template. I have seen this template appear occasionally on Power Rangers articles, and had to revert this template each time. We don't need this template when we have Votes for Deletion and speedy deletions instead. Andros 1337 04:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. At first I was going to argue for a "keep" but in looking through the template messages I find that there are a number that can be used to handle the diversity of matters that go into making an article "encyclopedic" including the cleanup-tone, POV, unreferenced, contradictory, etc. I agree that this shouldn't be used for what the wording actually states, which is "notability", wherefrom the attachment to Power Rangers articles no doubt arises. I think most of us assume notability unless proven otherwise (and thats where the deletion options come in), whereas this template takes the opposite and pretty abrasive approach. Courtland 05:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
Weak keep. Without looking at the articles that had been tagged with the template, I was going to vote "delete". After looking at those articles, it appears that the primary use (currently) for the template is for articles that really should be put through the Vote for deletion process, but the person who tagged the articles probably didn't want to go through the time, hassle, politics, abuse, etc. that accompanies the VfD process. BlankVerse ∅ 07:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep similar to Blankverse. It gives authors of borderline articles the idea that they can save their article from VfD by expanding on it, which is a positive note. Radiant! 09:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep See Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers#Newbie vanity for explanation, how this template can be used (and why). --Wikimol 10:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This template being placed on Power Rangers pages is an example of misuse. In the Power Rangers articles, it was used for in a POV-based way, claiming those pages to be unencylopedic fancruft, which they obviously were NOT. Andros 1337 13:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Have you tried contacting the misuser on his talk page, and talk it out? It may be a matter of misunderstanding. I don't believe we should remove something merely because it can be abused, since lots of things can be abused. Radiant! 08:10, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: useful —ævarab 07:49, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Keep. I often use it as described above: letting the original author know that they could probably do with a little more work to convince me that the topic is of sufficient merit to remain in an encyclopedia. Enochlau 01:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - potentially useful Fawcett5 03:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, keep it, it's a lot more sensible than immediately slapping a VfD listing on a questionable article. Abuse? Bah, it's a wiki, everything can be abused. --iMb~Mw 10:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful, also friendlier than putting something on VFD 3 minutes after it's created. JYolkowski 21:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I seem to recall that this was previously listed on TFD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rugby union positions

No real need for this. We don't need articles on the finer points of playing outside-half, when Rugby union positions already explains the positions nicely. This could be better achieved with just a static table on the page with section links, since it's not useful elsewhere. Chris 03:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This could be handled better by a simple diagram. No need for them all to link here like this. And since several of the backpositions have different names in different countries (First five-eighth?Wing three-quarters?) this could simply confuse some people. Grutness|^hello?

05:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For now, I've redirected the articles that were created as a result, and converted the table to a static one which links to subsections on Rugby union positions, which I think is much cleaner. I've also copied it over to Rugby League positions with appropriate changes. I think having links to each position on the page is useful, but they don't need their own pages, especially when they may have different functions in the league and union games. Chris 14:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The positions' names are standardised by the IRB according to the article, so that's not really an issue. Rls 00:50, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

This last point needs to be verified - I'm sure that isn't the case! And even if it is, with three of the world's main rugby playing nations (NZ, Australia, and South Africa) all using different terminology to that listed, my comment still holds true. Grutness|^hello?

11:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been able to verify it, but at least some positions are referred to by specific name in the laws. Even if the point is not true, I think we just have to select the most popular name, as in color rather than colour, or indeed the current headings in the article. Rls 20:46, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Keep. Why not have separate articles for each position? There is a precedent -- see goalkeeper or striker for example. Assuming there are (or will be) separate articles, then the template is useful (and until that time, I have edited the template to point internally to rugby union positions). Also, it was part of the general rugby union article where I think its inclusion was useful and informative (and when you removed it you forgot to alter the text where it referred to the diagram). Rls 00:50, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

There might well be an article for football's "striker", but there isn't one for "left centre forward". Is there anything wrong with the current setup of the positions on the one page? More importantly, do we need a template for use on only the one page? Chris 21:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) "left centre forward" is a generic position, whereas "striker" is a very specific role, analagous to one of the rugby positions. 2) Having multiple entries in one article makes referencing them more difficult: many of the current articles on individual rugby union players link to their positions, which makes things awkward and messy if these have to be internal links. 3) The template is also used in the main rugby union article (which is why I created the template in the first place, to avoid duplication of information) and would be used on articles for individual positions. Rls 22:44, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

I think you're getting them mixed up. "Striker" is a generic position. A football team may have any number of them in different places (often two or three). "Left centre forward" is fairly specific, since it only turns up in formations with 4 or 5 forward players. Some teams may use it to act as centre-forward when the right-hand player is on strike, and others may use the position as part of a striking pair. There's nothing useful which can be said about a left centre-forward other than "a centre-forward on the left-hand side of the field". Similarly, there's probably little more to be said about most positions in RU than what's already said. Anything more gets to technical speculation about tactics, etc. As nice as it might be, Wikipedia is not the BBC Sport Academy, or the IRB homepage. Similarly, there's no need for the table on rugby union, as it just confuses things, particularly awkward click trails, as well as the fact that the template is more difficult to edit than the table in-place. I'd also appreciate it if you could refrain from putting it back in until this debate is settled. Chris 05:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know what a striker is. What I meant is, a striker has a specific role to play in a team, analagous to a role/position in rugby union. I also think that the description of separate positions could be usefully expanded, without resorting to tactical speculation. As for refraining from replacing the template, I will do so to avoid an edit war but I believe Wiqiquette indicates that the person trying to remove content should be the one to wait for the outcome of the debate. Rls 17:53, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

I don't see the point of seperate articles on each position, what will they add that is not already in rugby union positions? The articles that already exist are just unnecessary duplication.GordyB 11:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[Sorry, I adjusted your indentation for easier comprehension.] The question is, not why have separate articles, but why have them in the same article? Separate articles are easier to reference. Consider: [[winger (rugby union)]] versus [[Rugby union positions#14. and 11. Wing]]. Rls 13:09, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

The problem with seperate articles is that you will need the main one anyway because you need to discuss difference in terminology between different rugby union nations and why union positions are more standardised than say soccer. It also helps to be able to discuss the difference between loosehead and tighthead props and blindside / openside flankers on the one page. In addition two players are noted as 'bluring the difference between different back row positions'. Where would you discuss these things if not on one page?GordyB 12:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These things would be discussed in the individual articles of course. The main article would be maintained as a useful overview. Rls 17:53, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

My other problem is that many of the positions have the same name in rugby league and the page would inevitably get split between union sections and league sections. I think this has already happened with scrumhalf. I prefer to keep the two sports as separate as possible.GordyB 18:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[[Scrum-half (rugby union)]] and [[Scrum-half (rugby league)]]? (Assuming the rugby league positions need separate articles -- it is my understanding that positions are rather less distinct in RL) Rls 20:46, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Comment -- I would prefer a simple table listing the positions instead of having a big diagram. Zzyzx11 02:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason? The diagram provides information on where each position plays relative to the others, something much easier to convey graphically than via prose. Rls 02:58, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

That explains why the diagram. It doesn't show why to use a template for inclusion on only one page. Chris 22:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The diagram is fine for Rugby union positions. My problem is that the template is only being used on that one article.Zzyzx11 00:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep only if it will shortly be used on other articles (e.g. if the positions are getting their own articles). Otherwise, make it a table and recreate the template if it is needed in the future. Thryduulf 23:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not everybody reading articles on rugby union will be a diehard fan of the game, the diagram neatly shows where evrybody plays in a way that words cannot. The internal links work well and should be kept. GordyB 11:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The diagram is useful, but a template that is only on one article is not. Zzyzx11 00:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but only if the other articles are created as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 00:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There were some (badly written) articles on individual positions but Chriscf changed them to redirects after I had created the template. I would be happy to begin (re-)creating the articles, but it seems a bit pointless if the outcome of this discussion is against it. Would creating an example article for one of the positions be helpful? Rls 17:53, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Template:GFMofWWII

Natural category, duplicates Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany, no natural order as a series, and it's IMO large and unwieldy - David Gerard 18:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, a category would work far better. - SimonP 20:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 02:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Order is by date of attaining rank. GeneralPatton 05:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep I suppose it might be very marginally useful to have it organized by dates (maybe the template should indicate this more clearly). But the main reason is simply that it's not going to get any bigger. Fawcett5 22:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Very useful in browsing through the various field marsals --24.30.75.0 05:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Verylarge

Perhaps a worthy attempt by an anonymous user to move out a bit of text that is used on two different categories (Category:Stub and Category:Substubs), however, those two bits are actually different and they can't really be merged and genericized. I've moved the content back and so Template:Verylarge is obsolete.

Namespace pollution ("very large") notwithstanding, even...

--Joy [shallot] 11:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've edited it quite a bit, so it applies to any too large or too rapidly growing category. Votes should be on the template as emended; Joy, do you still vote to delete? —msh210 14:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. —msh210 14:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's okay now, but you still don't have a cause for it, there are no pages using it. :) Please don't change the aforementioned two categories, they're better as they are now. And the name is still too generic for this narrow purpose (it should be named "catverylarge" if it's just for categories). --Joy [shallot] 17:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, no one's used it yet, of course; in effect, I've just created it. But I've added it now to WP:TM, so people migt start using it now. —msh210 22:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep! Brilliant! This is exactly what I was looking for. I'm glad someone's made this. Don't worry - it will be used very soon! Grutness|^hello? 00:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Looks good. It would be helpful to include a link to some discussion or article about very large categories if there is one that touches on the technical problems, human problems, and multiple solutions related to very large categories. You've included one solution, re-categorizing to existing sub-categories; another is the creation of new sub-categories where the existing ones do not suffice, and the splitting of the large category into two or more sub-categories of the parent category. Too much to put on a template message, but fodder for discussion on a guidelines page. Thank you for your effort in making this. Courtland 00:42, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

- Agreed. —msh210 03:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Surprised that a template like this didn't already exist. -Sean Curtin 01:25, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Where was this template when I needed it? However, I agree with Joy and suggest we give it a more specific name. Zzyzx11 08:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. — Xiong (talk) 03:30, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Keep, but rename. Something like LargeCategoryHeader? BlankVerse ∅ 09:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so what do we rename it to? The options offered so far are:

verylarge
catverylarge
LargeCategoryHeader

Anything else? --Joy [shallot] 15:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about Template: Big cat? :) Grutness|^hello? 07:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lion? Template:Tiger? Personal opinion: I hate templates and categories that have ambiguous abbreviations (e.g. Is template:bio-stub for biology or biography?). BlankVerse ∅ 09:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (note the smiley). As for bio-stub, it was created before anyone thought that a biology-stub was necessary (the latter now also exists). Considering how many biography stubs there are, changing it now would be like crashing the gears on the servers. Grutness|^hello? 00:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:419 warning

A very laudable purpose, first seen by me used to warn visitors to Suha Arafat about an ongoing 419 scam, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

In particular:

Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

The 419 scammers are bad guys, but Wikipedia isn't the police force. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Tony feels that soapboxing is okay as long as you're doing it to defraud people, but I find it difficult to agree. --Brion 01:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

See my response to Brion at Talk:Suha Arafat. I don't like these criminals any more than Brion, but this is an encyclopedia and it should deal with them in an encyclopedic (and in my opinion no less effective) manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added this to the article. In my opinion this is the way to deal with the scam--write about it.

In 2005, Nigerian criminal gangs used her name in some of their Advance fee fraud scams propagated thoughout the world by email [1].

and

Nigerian scammers use Suha Arafat's name

In 2005, Nigerian criminal gangs used her name in some of their Advance fee fraud scams propagated thoughout the world by email [2]. Some of the emails used referred to the Wikipedia article about Ms Arafat. Emails sent out as part of the criminal plot, which was in no way associated with Suha Arafat, falsely purported to be from her, asking for help to recover $20,000,000, and promising the recipient a share of the money for his help. This was simply a false promise intended to prepare the victim to hand over his own money in the vain hope of seeing a share of the fictitious fortune.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The Wikipedia has, unfortunately, become part of the story and that needs to be noted. I have, however, edited the template to make it less prominent. BlankVerse ∅ 08:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete the template, but keep the warning on the page affected by this problem. Pcb21| Pete 15:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, don't delete, don't merge into article. Kate.
Keep, in either the earliest or current brief form. No, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but it is in the business of curing ignorance, pretty much by definition. --iMb~Mw 19:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, as long as this is a single instance, a template might be overdoing it; but a warning is appropriate in any case, and most certainly not soapboxing. And if such a thing happens again, then surely a template is worth considering. After all, everything that grows above a certain size is bound to attract crooks. -- AlexR 19:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep a visible warning - as a service for anyone following a scam link. --Henrygb 10:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete: we definitely don't need templates just for one article. Of course, the warning on the page should definitely be kept. -Sean Curtin 00:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)