Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes for deletion

Votes for deletion is the process where the community discusses whether a page should be deleted or not, depending on the consensus of the discussion.

Please read and understand the Wikiquote deletion policy before editing this page.

  • Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.
  • Always be sure to sign your entry or vote, or it will not be counted.

The process

Requesting deletions

To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:

I: Put the deletion tag on the article.
Insert the {{vfd-new}} tag at the top of the page.
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use the edit summary to indicate the nomination; this can be as simple as "VFD".
  • You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the VfD tag is removed by a vandal.
  • Save the page.
II: Create the article's deletion discussion page.
Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page.
  • Copy the following: {{subst:vfd-new2|pg=PAGENAME|text=REASONING — ~~~~}}. Replace PAGENAME with the name of the page you're nominating, and REASONING with an explanation of why you think the page should be deleted. Note that the signature/timestamp characters (~~~~) are placed inside the braces {{ }}, not outside as with standard posts.
  • Explanations are important when nominating a page for deletion. While it may be obvious to you why a page should be deleted, not everyone will understand and you should provide a clear but concise explanation. Please remember to sign your comment by putting ~~~~ at the end.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Save the page.
III: Notify users who monitor VfD discussion.
Copy the tag below, and then click  THIS LINK  to open the deletion log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert:

replacing PAGENAME appropriately.

  • Please include the name of the nominated page in the edit summary.
  • Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/PAGENAME}}.
  • Consider also adding {{subst:VFDNote|PAGENAME}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the article's principal contributor(s).

Note: Suggestions for requesting deletion of multiple pages, non-article pages, and repeat nominations may be found at VFD tips.

Voting on deletions

Once listed, the entire Wikiquote community is invited to vote on whether to keep or delete each page, or take some other action on it. Many candidate articles will have specific dates by which to vote; if none is given, you can assume at least seven days after the article is listed before the votes are tallied.

To vote, jump or scroll down to the entry you wish to vote on, click its "edit" link, and add your vote to the end of the list, like one of these:

  • Keep. ~~~~
  • Delete. ~~~~
  • (other actions; explain) ~~~~
  • Comment (not including action) ~~~~

Possible other actions include Merge, Rename, Redirect, Move to (sister project). Please be clear and concise when describing your action.

The four tildes (~~~~) will automatically add your user ID and a timestamp to your vote. This is necessary to ensure each Wikiquotian gets only a single vote. You can add some comments to your vote (before the tildes) to explain your reasons, but it is not required. However, it may help others to decide which way to vote.

Please do not add a vote after the closing date and time; any late vote may be struck out and ignored by the closing admin.

NOTE: Although we use the term "vote", VfD is not specifically a democratic process, as we have no way of verifying "one person, one vote". It is designed to "take the temperature" of the community on a subject. Sysops have the responsibility of judging the results based on a variety of factors, including (besides the votes) policies, practices, precedents, arguments, compromises between conflicting positions, and seriousness of the participants.

Closing votes and deleting articles

Sysops have the responsibility to review the list and determine what articles have achieved a consensus, whether it is for deletion, preservation, or some other action. All candidate articles should be listed here at least seven days before the votes are tallied. Many VfD entries will have "Vote closes" notices to indicate when the votes will be tallied.

  • The sysop tallying the vote should add a "vote closed" header with the result of the vote, and sign it.
  • If consensus is for deletion, the sysop should follow the deletion process to delete the article.
  • If it is to keep, or if there is no consensus for action, the sysop should remove the {{Vfd-new}} tag from the article and post a notice on the article's talk page about the completed VfD, including a link to the VfD discussion on that article. The {{Vfd-kept-new}} template can be used for a standard notice.
  • There may also be a vote to move (rename) or otherwise change the article. The sysop's actions will depend on the specific situation in these cases. In those cases, a notice should also be posted on the talk page documenting the decision.

To avoid conflict of interest, a sysop should never close a VfD that he or she started. However, a sysop may close a VfD in which he or she has voted.

After a reasonable time, a sysop will then move the entire entry into the appropriate month page of the VfD log. (Some old discussions are available only in the old Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive.)

Note: In the interest of cross-wiki cooperation, please check Wikipedia to make sure their articles don't link back to an article that has just been deleted. Also de-link any other language edition articles (though if you find that daunting, EVula is more than happy to do so).

Reviewing closed votes

All closed votes will be archived indefinitely in per-month pages at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log. (A few are still found only in the old Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive.) See that page for details.

Deletion candidates

Steven Donziger

REASONING Not one notable quote, page is coatrack of editorializing about Donziger's dispute with Chevron Corporation, another article also created by same banned editor. (Two different accounts, but the same editor, now banned for abusing multiple accounts.) Even if you agree that Chevron behaved very badly to Donziger, disguising an editorial link farm as a Wikiquote article is wrong. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 01:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


Fake Wikipedia articles where one-sided opinions are presented as facts. Blocked POV-pushing editors created all these. Not one notable quote among them, nor is there likely to be on these topics. — HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The socks created some articles that can be rescued by adding good quotes. But these "fake Wikipedia articles," we should delete, because the topics are not suited to Wikiquote:

Blocked user Om777om has not been shown by Checkuser to be the same as the socks above, but he created 3 articles in this category that were later edited by the socks.

I apologize in advance if I'm not making this complex suggestion correctly. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, delete them all. I think doing these as a group is the best way to handle this problem. Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with the term Fake Wikipedia articles
  • To my knowledge we do not delete pages because "the topics are not suited to Wikiquote"
Comment: I doubt anyone will check carefully all the articles the OP has suggested in one swift stroke of the keyboard, but hope the deleting admin will Ottawahitech (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Real Wikipedia articles achieve NPOV by relying on fact-checked RS before making assertions. These articles use quote selection, images, and bolding to imply that one point of view is endorsed by wikivoice. I have spent hours trying to improve other "sock" articles, where the topic is deep enough to inspire notable quotes. Wikiquote has an article on Crimes against humanity, it doesn't need one for Crimes Against Humanity Initiative . And so on. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep them all! Those are exellent pages that all who inquire should know about. Why hide or cover-up the truth? Do you calling for deletion wish to help tyrants and harm the people? It is sad that so many are so very afraid of the truth and want to hide it. They should be sent to the doctor's office. They should be advised that truth is the people's best friend and the worst enemy of tyrants. Real winners never lie and liars never win. Bless their hearts, eventually they'll know what i mean and see that hiding the truth is very wrong and that it will eventually set us all free! 17:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep United States embargo against Cuba, a notable topic that can likely be improved by adding quotes reflecting other perspectives; delete the rest, as the topics covered are on a smaller scale or are less cohesive as topics. BD2412 T 07:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    Some may want to consider that this particular page has clearly had significantly more interest than the others, as reflected below:

    1) Information Warfare Community, Created 8 Apr 2022, total pageviews: 450; 17 days; Avg pageviews per day: 26
    The topic is extremely relevant to the current events, as nearly everyone witnesses the actions of this group, once known as the "Information Dominance Corps". ~anon 22:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I object to this, because it is too vaguely worded. How do you even define a "fake Wikipedia article"? --Spafky (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Spafky: "Fake Wikipedia" is a descriptor I made up on the spot when trying to explain why these articles shared a common problem: quotes all so POV they ended up sounding like undisputed facts about each topic. I spent many hours trimming and balancing other articles created by the LibraryClerk191 sockpuppets, but these seemed to me topics where it would be hard to find notable "quotable" quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 monkeypox outbreak

Listed material us unlikely to meet Wikiquote:Quotability; the quotes are just ordinary objective reports of the situation with no preference on their specific wording. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Quotes might be bad, but it's too notable to simply delete. Edit: Delete, there is nothing really good about the article. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) 09:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Have you tried to look for quotes which are not "bad" concerning this topic? I tried and couldn't find any. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    @1234qwer1234qwer4: If there really are zero good quotes, than consider my vote to a "Delete". – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    @1234qwer1234qwer4, I am glad you have joined the discussion. I hope I can ask you a couple of questions without being accused of of being incivil:
    • Do you recall ever adding quotes to any article on WQ?, if so can you provide a few examples of your work.
    • Do you recall improving any health related articles on WQ?, ditto.
    I am asking because I don't have a good memory, but do not recall seeing any of your content building work on WQ. I am also wondering about your comment below:
    there is no merit in attempting that on things that "just simply may not belong here"
    Is it your opinion that this article simply does not belong on WQ, and if so why do you believe this? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC) In regards to "I tried and couldn't find any": Why are you so certain that none of the 251 inline references of the enwp article have any quotable quotes? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I am not accusing you of being incivil, but I have already said below: VfD is about discussing articles, not editors. I do not see how these questions contribute to the discussion (with the rest of the community, keep in mind, not just the nominator or any other arbitrary user specifically) on whether or not the quotes on this page meet Wikiquote's inclusion standards? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    @1234qwer1234qwer4, Why won't you answer questions such as
    • "Why are you so certain that none of the 251 inline references of the enwp article have any quotable quotes?"
    • "Is it your opinion that this article simply does not belong on WQ?"
    This has nothing to do with commenting on editors and everything to do with the rationale you used in nominating this article for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, you added the first of these question in the edit I conflicted with and I did not bother to look what it was about at that moment, sorry. The condition of being listed at Wikipedia is somewhat arbitrary, but discussing whether or not there are quotable quotes on the topic at hand is the point of this venue. I have not found any; however, so far nobody of the other participants could provide any such material either. If you can, great, but so far this article does not contain any quotes worthy of inclusion, and deleting it would not keep editors off from recreating it with appropriate quotes.
As for the second question, you may or may not know that Wikiquote:Votes for deletion "discusses whether a page should be deleted or not", so you can assume that anybody nominating a page for deletion here does indeed opine "that this article simply does not belong on WQ". The reasons for that opinion are generally stated in the nomination, so maybe you could try looking there. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 05:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ottawahitech: By asking if an editor has ever added a quote on a platform exclusively for quotes is slightly offensive. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 02:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    Why? There are many users who have-not added any quotes. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete in its current form. I agree that the topic is notable, but the listed quotes are not. If better quotes were found, I would change my mind, but as is it is not worthy of keeping. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Going to attempt some research for this topic. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I can technically find quotes but they don't meet Wikiquote:Quotability. It's just medical advice and news reporting. I would propose to delete unless such quotes can be found. It may be too soon for them to exist. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete a recent news topic that has so far attracted no notable quotable quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech:, I would read through Wikiquote:Quotability. The comparison between the two page's pageviews doesn't really make sense. The statement that editors who, like you, are "destroying" is uncivil and makes me think of what a new user with no experience would say, not what one who has done genuinely good work, like you, would say. Not everything warrants a Wikiquote page; that doesn't mean there's nowhere the page would be useful, it just simply may not belong here. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer, I would rather not debate who is more uncivil/incivil. I would rather lay out some simple arithmetic that everyone can agree with:
  • seven non-IP users have contributed to this deletion discussion
  • four non-IP users and three IP users contributed to the actual article that is being nominated for deletion in this discussion
  • on 21 May 2022 the article was created by an IP user, it was tagged as a Proposed deletion within 3 hours
    • Proposed deletions (PRODs) are described in a WQ-Policy namely: Wikiquote:Proposed deletion
      • According to this policy: "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the Wikiquote quote compendium
    • On 31 May 2022 I removed the PROD tag, and had my action promptly reverted with a stern please wait for an admin edit summary.
      • I spent additional time on the tagger's user-talkpage to remind them that anyone is free to remove PROD-tags, no need for admin permission. In total this used up 6 more edits that contributed zero improvement to the article, and used up time I would have preferred to use adding content to our compendium of quotes.
    • On June 1 I removed the PROD tag for the second time, just to have the original tagger replace it with a Votes for deletion (VFD) tag
Summary: Only two non-IP users, out of a total 11, attempted to improve the article. There were 17+6+12=35 corresponding edits, but only 6 edits were an attempt to improve the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, Ottawahitech, but please follow w:WP:CIVIL. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't see how bringing up the edits to the page is relevant in this discussion. VfD is about discussing articles, not editors. I have already apologised for reverting your removal of the PROD tag on my talk page, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make about it now, neither do I see what is objectively wrong with "replac[ing] it with a Votes for deletion (VFD) tag", which means nothing but starting a discussion after your removal made clear that the article would not be an "uncontroversial deletion candidate" as required by PROD. As for "attempt[s] to improve the article", I believe @Rubbish computer's comment you were replying to already explained that there is no merit in attempting that on things that "just simply may not belong here" – and a web search shows that there are no quotes meeting the criteria of this project on this topic at the moment. (Feel free to prove that wrong though, but do remember Wikiquote:Quotability.) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer, Re: "The comparison between the two page's pageviews doesn't really make sense."
It makes perfect sense to me. The comparison between pageviews of the page nominated for deletion and the page where the deletion is being debated clearly shows that a lot of energy is being diverted away from improving the article in question. AND, unfortunately, it appears this trend will accelerate in the next days.
I am saying this with a heavy heart, but after reading a seemingly unrelated discussion regarding the use of paywalled sources on WQ, it appears I am not the only person around who feels WQ is in trouble. The person who conveyed this information is, unlike most of the participants on this deletion board, someone who has contributed A LOT of content to WQ, but rarely participates in discussion. I am not the most eloquent person around, and I do not enjoy participating in Dramah boards. The only reason I am here is my gut feeling that deletion does not fix the important issues we face trying to build this "compendium of quotes". All this does is take away attention from the real issues that we must confront.
IMIO we should be drawing new participants into more productive pursuits and away from endless discussion. People without experience in building content should not be making decisions for the rest. YMMV. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not interested in taking this conversation any further. I voted Delete based on Wikiquote:Quotability, the article doesn't meet it, that's literally it. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep AntisocialRyan (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikiquote:Quotability is a guideline that describes what good quotes are, it does not tell us when articles should be deleted. Wikiquote: Deletion policy is where we should be looking to see if this article should be kept or deleted, and it is clear that the rationale for deletion that has been used in this deletion discussion cannot be used when one follows official policy.
The policy states quite clearly that articles which are capable of meeting inclusion criteria should not be deleted. The key word is capable. In other words, articles which currently do not meet inclusion criteria, but are capable of meeting this criteria in future, should be kept. Since WQ has dozens of similar articles (see: Category:Diseases and disorders), I don't see how anyone can convince us that an article about this particular disease is not capable of meeting WQ criteria. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment I happened to see two articles on monkeypox the may contain decent quotes:

When will this VFD be closed? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


Many Horses

Certainly an interesting topic but doesn't appear to be notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: I agree that this specific person is not really notable, but I wonder if a home can't be found for the quote on another page, perhaps an appropriate theme page? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi UDScott, that's a good idea. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Study Series

Appears to be part of a book series; I don't think it's a notable series overall. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep, but move to a page for the author (Maria V. Snyder) and clean up the formatting a bit. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Move provisionally to author page per UDScott: provided that both the format and the content are cleaned up. This children's (nominally "young adult") literature needs to be scrubbed for weak material lacking real quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Fixies: Top Secret

Not notable, no sources, no lead section — Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


Unnecessary XNR. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 13:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep this has been warred over endlessly on Wikipedia. While maybe there’s some legitimate reason not to have a cross-namespace redirect for this topic on WP, this seems like an unnecessary removal of a potentially useful shortcut. Dronebogus (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Dronebogus: Well, I tried to do something similar, and here was the outcome, there's no reason why you should receive preferential treatment. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 14:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    That’s a user, not a page. Pages can have some legitimate XNRs but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a user have one. Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 14:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Media of India

Not quotable. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 04:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 05:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep? Seems like a another nomination of a stub on the basis that it's a stub. GMGtalk 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


Insufficient quotes, should be merged into Mario (franchise)Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 01:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  • * Keep? Seems like a another nomination of a stub on the basis that it's a stub. GMGtalk 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Wataru Mimura

Not notable/quotable. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep as I think this person is notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 21:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 22:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

2008–09 Keynesian resurgence

Not quotable. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 21:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep There's nothing wrong with stubs. I find it hard to believe that in a subject covering two years of national history, there simply no extant quotes that would be appropriate. GMGtalk 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 22:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


Barely used, highly specific template, that could just be done manually. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 13:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 14:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


Worse version of {{vfd-new}}Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 16:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 17:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 17:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - I believe this was originally created as a test anyway - and I agree that the original template is better. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
    Comment This was not at test page. The template was adapted by LrdChaos from the "old" Template:Vfd-template by Jeffq, which was itself adapted from Wikipedia's similar inline template. It works fine. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into {{Vfd-new}}. The point of this template is that it produces a smaller banner when you transcude a page nominated for deletion, so that you don't get massive, disruptive banners in the middle of other pages. With a bit of work this functionality could be added to the existing {{Vfd-new}} template though, so that when you view the page that is nominated for deletion it produces a full size banner, and when you view a page transcluding that page you get a small unobtrusive link. 18:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind if improvements can be made to the existing template - just don't need two of them. And my issue with this template is that it is too small (and hard to read IMHO). But I am all for your suggestions to improve the current one (I'm just not technically savvy enough to implement them). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@UDScott When nominating templates for deletion there are extra things you have to take into consideration that don't apply to other types of pages, the big one is that templates are transcluded into other places. The reason that this template is small is that it is supposed to appear unobtrusively on the pages where the template nominated for deletion is used. The other thing is that the page where the deletion banner appears isn't necessarily the page that is being nominated for deletion, if page "foo" uses template "bar" then the deletion notice that appears on page "bar" needs to point to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:foo, the standard {{Vfd-new}} template would assume that the link is supposed to go to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/bar.
My suggestion is that this should be kept as a separate template due to the amount of template specific stuff needed, but modified. It would be relatively trivial to edit this template so that when you look at the page of the template nominated for deletion you get a full size banner, but when you look at pages where the template is used you get a small, unobtrusive note (so in the example above "template:foo" would get a full size banner, page "bar" would get a small inline note "template:foo used here has been nominated for deletion"). 17:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Other things to consider - {{Vfd-new}} uses the current page name which means it doesn't link to the right place when used on templates. If you have "template:foo" used on page "bar" when you look at the template on page "bar" it will tell you that "bar" has been nominated for deletion, instead of "template:foo", and all the links in the template will lead to a votes for deletion page for the page "bar". 18:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep for technical reasons explained at length by above, at least unless and until some new and improved combined functionality is implemented. See a current example of intended usage on person with many transclusions. See also brief discussion of usage at VFD tips#Non-article pages. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Always substitute

A template that has been copied from the English wikipedia which does not work because it relies on a bot that does not run on this project.

On the English wikipedia AnomieBOT can be configured to automatically perform certain operations on templates, e.g. adding dates to maintenance tags and substituting transuded templates. This template is used by that bot to indicate that templates are to be automatically substituted if they are accidentally transuded. The issue here is that AnomieBOT only runs on the English wikipedia. There is no point copying templates that form part of that bot's internal workings to this project, there is no point adding notes that "Any accidental transclusions will be automatically substituted by a bot." to templates, and there is no point sorting templates into categories like Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted because the bot that actually performs that work does not edit here. — 18:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 18:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Well no, not really. It still sorts pages into broken and missing categories, it still contains code to call templates and pages that don't exist on this wiki, and it is still completely unnecessary because it's part of a bot workflow that doesn't exist on this wiki. 19:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Fully fixed now. Can you withdraw? – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet) (talk / e-mail) 19:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
How is this functionality fixed? Where exactly is the bot running? ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Hang on/notice2

A single subpage of the "hang on" template from the English Wikipedia. This makes no sense here, the hang on template isn't used to contest speedy deletions on this project, the instructions make no sense (what button is there to click in the Wikiquote speedy deletion template) and I don't see why only one subpage was imported. — 11:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is useless, no context. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Suspected sockpuppets

Useless category. To start with we already have Category:Suspected Wikiquote sockpuppets which is basically identical in scope. The instructions at the top of the category refer to a deleted template and don't make sense anymore. The already existing Category:Suspected Wikiquote sockpuppets is full of accounts that have been blocked on the basis of behavioural evidence. This category is full of accounts that haven't edited in years that Ilovemydoodle has accused of being sockpuppets, often without any real evidence, then tagged with one of their templates saying that someone else needs to figure out if they're sockpuppets or not. — 11:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


Template subpage copied from the English wikipedia which isn't used on this project. the Wikiquote implementation of {{Sockpuppet}} does not use this subpage. — 11:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ping all administrators

I think it is worth having a discussion over whether this template should exist. On the one hand pinging all administrators is more justifiable than pinging all users, on the other hand this has the potential to become a massive nuisance.

Most of the places where this has been used are patently inappropriate, it's been added into random templates like {{Bansock}}, and used to ping administrators for things that are in no way a site ending emergency. In a lot of situations where it had been used it seems like it would have been more appropriate to use a centralised administrative noticeboard like WQ:AN or WQ:VIP - if a situation only needs 1 administrator to resolve pinging all of them is just going to result in 90% of the admins wasting their time. If this is going to be kept it should only be used very sparingly in situations where every administrator is legitimately needed. — 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a nuisance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete; just generating noisy notifications where noticeboards should be used instead. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    13:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Election results

This is for Template:Election results, Module:Election results, Module:Political party and all the subpages of that module. It isn't at all clear to me why a compendium of quotations would need templates for creating election results tables. This seems out of project scope and better suited to wikipedia. This template is used in one place, a discussion on the village pump, where it was used to give a running tally of how people had "voted". The table there is obnoxiously big and disruptive, unnecessary, and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of how consensus works (consensus != counting votes). Furthermore it is completely unnecessary to have a massive nest of complex modules, templates and lua data structures to produce a 1 off table with some fancy colouring, I propose removing the single use of this or replacing it with a plain table, and deleting this template. — 11:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. "...obnoxiously big and disruptive, unnecessary, and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of how consensus works...". ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: Out of project scope. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    13:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC) person

This should be deleted for the same reason that show was deleted, no longer exists and all the links this template produces are dead. — 11:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


Documentation page that has been copied from the English wikipedia which has no relation to the template it is attached to, and which hasn't been localised. Everything here is wrong and/or doesn't make sense on this project. The name of the template, the date format used, the categories you are supposed to check, the information on bots, and the linked policies are all incorrect. — 18:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, could be Speedy Delete as purely false and misinformation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete; misleading and redundant to the (correct) documentation shown on the template page. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    13:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ambox duplicates

This is for Template:W:Message box, Template:W:ambox, Template:Ambox/w, Template:Ombox/w, Module:W:Message box, Module:W:Message box/configuration, Module:Message box/w and Module:Message box/w/configuration.

These are completely unnecessary duplicates of Template:ambox/Template:ombox and their associated backend modules. They have the exact same functionality and do the exact same thing. The first three templates here are actually identical, as are the two copies of the modules, why the hell we would ever need multiple copies of the same template is beyond me. These are all unused duplicates of other templates and modules, and as such should be deleted. — 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete all, per noim. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@UDScott I found another duplicate template (in this case of ombox) and another identical copy of the modules. I've added them to this nomination. Courtesy ping so you're aware of the additions. 01:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


A template that has been copied from somewhere without attribution that cannot ever work on this project because it requires MW:Extension:External Data, which is not enabled on any WMF sites. — 18:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


Completely unnecessary duplicate of Module:Shortcut.

I have no idea why this was created, it does the exact same thing as thing as the shortcut module and is in fact just an updated version of the same code. If you need features of a module which are only available in more recent versions then you should just update the module - we don't need to maintain a massive mess of various versions of the same code at different subpages. — 18:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


This is for Template:Cut and Module:Cut

Weird and useless template/module which allows you to copy bits of wikitext from other templates into pages. You give the module the character to start at and the character to end at and it returns the content of the template page between those points. This was created as part of the attempts to make a database for things like the {{Closed}} and the LTA tagging templates. This doesn't seem like it has any use to me outside of making weird template page based databases, if you want to copy the code from one template into another you just transclude it, if you want to copy bits of the code use the inclusion control tags, if you want to include specific sections of a page use labelled section transclusion, if you want to swap behaviours based on an imput use something like a case statment. This is unused, and it has no plausible use. — 18:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


This is for Template:Pp-template, Module:Effective protection expiry, Module:Effective protection level, Module:Protection banner and Module:Protection banner/config.

This is a protection banner template for a protection level that does not exist on this project. The templates and modules have been copied from the English wikipedia with no attempt made to localise them or set up the configuration properly. Even if template level protection does end up getting added here it would be better in my view for us to make our own protection template in the same style as {{Protected}} and {{Semiprotected}} than to copy paste a protection template in a completely different style designed for a project with a protection system with an order of magnitude more complexity. — 18:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


Another useless single line module. This isn't used anywhere, and has no potential to be used anywhere. This seems to be some kind of test. As far as I can tell all this module does is return the "name" parameter back to you unaltered (i.e. you create a template that contains {{#invoke:GetSectionName|get_section_name}}, then you use {{exampletemplate|name=foo}} which should return "foo"). There is no reason why passing a parameter to a template to pass it to a module which in turn just outputs it unaltered would be useful. — 14:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC) ,


This is for Module:GetSection and it's two associated templates Template:SectionCheck and Template:CutText. These are a bunch more useless and weird modules created for the "use a template page as a database" mess. These are now unused and are highly unlikely to ever find another use. — 14:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Edit section

A template that creates square bracketed "edit" links like you get in section headers, but which allows you to place them anywhere in the wikitext of a page and to edit any section (not just the one they're in). Why would this ever be necessary? More fundamentally this is a terrible idea because it is confusing - repurposing bits of the mediawiki interface to be used in wierd and unusual situations is just going to confuse other people who come across them. Unused, no obvious use, delete. — 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Module:Message box/old

This is for Module:Message box/old and Module:Message box/old/styles.css.

I believe the technical term for what we are looking at here is "a complete fucking mess". These are duplicates of the message box module that were created so Ilovemydoodle could mess around with the main module, which is in active use.

As best I can tell the background of these modules goes something like this:

  • Ilovemydoodle decides that they want to change how some of message boxes look on the site for some inexplicable reason.
  • They start using the main Module:Message box as a sandbox to screw around with making the boxes appear at different locations in the text.
  • They copy the existing, working module to an /old subpage
  • They modify some, but not all, of the existing templates to swap to the /old subpage, e.g. [1]

We now have a complete mess left over to fix, notably:

  • We have two copies of the same module, both of which are in use.
  • We have two versions of "omboxes", each of which looks slightly different.
  • A module being used on hundereds of pages is being treated as a sandbox.
  • The output of a long term, stable module has been changed without explanation or reason.

My proposal to fix this is thus:

  • The changes to the main module are reverted, and we check that nothing important is relying on the modified form of omboxs.
  • Any edits which introduced the /old subpage into use are reverted.
  • the /old subpages are deleted, returning us to one module.

If, in the future, Ilovemydoodle decides they want to play around with a heavily used module they do so in their own sandbox (or even better, on the test wiki), not on live code. If they want to create a brand new type of message box they should create a new template, not hijack an existing one. — 15:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)