Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 3 January 5 >

January 4 edit

Template:PD-svg edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-svg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and already well covered by {{PD-ineligible}} WOSlinker (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox sunday edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G7. Mhiji 09:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox sunday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, seemed like a good idea at the time, and in the future there may be a demand for it. Whatever really. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted per G7 by Athaenara, but I don't really know if T.M.M. Dowd's comment above counts as justification for G7. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox router edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox router (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-nonUK edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-nonUK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused license template. Also template is not styled to appaear the same as the other license templates. WOSlinker (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD article edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While the original author of an article may release it as public domain, any further edits to the article once on Wikipedia will mean that the resulting revision is licensed under Creative Commons. Continuing to show the template on the article would then be incorrect. WOSlinker (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per T2 violates Wikipedia's copyright policy. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a misrepresentation of policy, because, for the limited time that the text is unaltered, it's entirely valid and permissible. --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The above, of course, doesn't mean that the benefit of the template is worth the risk of maintaining it. Information like this to prevent deletion of material for copyright infringement would be better on the talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Old Dominion Monarchs football coach navbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. HeyMid (contribs) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Old Dominion Monarchs football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Only links 2 articles. WP:NENAN Mhiji 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Navboxes are replacing succession boxes on college football and college basketball coach pages, and are being upgraded to include the coaches' first names and years of service, thus making the clunky and space-consuming old succession boxes obsolete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's disigenuous to suggest that these two templates aren't being used. They are. It just so happens that both programs, in the case of Albany - having a coach with a long tenure, and Old Dominion - a program reinstated within the last couple of years after decades of dormancy, aren't littered with a long list of coaches. However, the working links in each navigation box do point to coaches who coach at the highest level of collegiate football - Division I. All Division I football programs, FBS and FCS (and more), have coaching navigation boxes. There are templates from the major pro leagues such as the NHL ({{HurricanesCoach}}) and NFL ({{PanthersCoach}}) that also have few coaching links within. Regardless of length of the lists, they provide a quick and easy format for readers to follow the line of succession of these head coaches in their respective sports. I won't bother copying this to the Albany template a few items down - it applies to both. Geologik (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's simply not true to call this template "unused"; it's used on every applicable article, of which there only happen to be two. Besides which, Dirtlawyer1 is correct about navboxes replacing succession boxes. cmadler (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template is in use.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jweiss11 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Milwaukee Panthers football coach navbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. HeyMid (contribs) 21:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Milwaukee Panthers football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Nearly all red links. WP:NENAN Mhiji 19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NENAN inapt. We will get to all these red links. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Grey Griffins Navbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grey Griffins Navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Grey Griffins Multimedia Mhiji 19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Albany Great Danes football coach navbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. HeyMid (contribs) 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albany Great Danes football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only links 2 articles Mhiji 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Navboxes are replacing succession boxes on college football and college basketball coach pages, and are being upgraded to include the coaches' first names and years of service, thus making the clunky and space-consuming old succession boxes obsolete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why wlinking "only" two articles merits deletion, and with a 35-year coach I expect that another name will be added within a few years. In present form, it still provides a timeline to explain the gaps in a useful manner for readers trying to follow the coaching chain where it otherwise might not be clear why no information or pages exist. Fjbfour (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Plus, the current coach is at least in his 70s (he's coached 51 seasons, and presumably was at least 21 when he started) and so there will probably be a new coach relatively soon. cmadler (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NENAN is completely inapplicable here. The entire set of college football coach nav boxes is worthy as is any nav box for a succession of coaches for any notable sports team. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rock-bands-timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rock-bands-timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and I can't see there being a use for it. Doesn't specify why these bands have been chosen rather than others. Mhiji 19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No objective basis for inclusion in it, so it is by nature POV. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Paper Moon (band) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paper Moon (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox. WP:NENAN. Mhiji 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, insufficient blue links to be useful. It just repeats the infobox plus the discography of 2 albums which have no articles. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Rehman 00:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Paths of Possession edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paths of Possession (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. The links are redirects to the artist's article anyway. Mhiji 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Patent-EU edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patent-EU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:IPL-EU Mhiji 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Protected Forests of Florida edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protected Forests of Florida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Protected Areas of Florida Mhiji 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Prop 8 results edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G7. Mhiji 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prop 8 results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Exists at California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Results Mhiji 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the template's creator, I'm desperately trying to remember why I created it in the first place but I'm at a total loss. Hmm. --Lincolnite (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Prophets of Christianity-nt edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prophets of Christianity-nt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:New Testament people Mhiji 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ProducingFilmography edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ProducingFilmography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PiersProjectInvite edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PiersProjectInvite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. The project is inactive. Mhiji 19:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Part of Project US presidents edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete Mhiji 03:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Part of Project US presidents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{WikiProject U.S. Presidents}} Mhiji 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's unused and probably never should have been used. --Coemgenus 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Projectdone edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete Mhiji 03:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Projectdone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{done}} Mhiji 19:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CompromisedIP edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under G5. — ξxplicit 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CompromisedIP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused. Also, I fail to see the purpose of this template. "This IP address was formerly compromised." – can IP addresses be compromised? I believe only registered user accounts can be. HeyMid (contribs) 14:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by a blocked sock. It doesn't make sense for IP addresses to be compromised, at least not in terms of Wikipedia. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, It does make sense for an IP address to be compromised if it is part of a botnet and therefore is an open proxy running on it. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what, it is unused and eligible for G5 speedy deletion. HeyMid (contribs) 09:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2008 NAB Cup Players edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 NAB Cup Players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The NAB Cup is only a pre-season tournament that is not contested seriously. Only increases template clutter and only 1996, 2004 and 2008 (all St Kilda wins) have templates. Consensus at WT:AFL was to delete. Note: creator, User:BrianBeahr, an indef blocked sockpuppeteer, has not been notified Jenks24 (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2004 Wizard Cup Players edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2004 Wizard Cup Players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Wizard Home Loans Cup is only a pre-season tournament that is not contested seriously. Only increases template clutter and only 1996, 2004 and 2008 (all St Kilda wins) have templates. Consensus at WT:AFL was to delete. Note: creator, User:BrianBeahr, an indef blocked sockpuppeteer, has not been notified Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1996 Ansett Cup Players edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1996 Ansett Cup Players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Ansett Cup is only a pre-season tournament that is not contested seriously. Only increases template clutter and only 1996, 2004 and 2008 (all St Kilda wins) have templates. Consensus at WT:AFL was to delete. Note: creator, User:BrianBeahr, an indef blocked sockpuppeteer, has not been notified Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:St Kilda Football Club 300 Games edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Kilda Football Club 300 Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary milestone that only increases template clutter. Consensus at WT:AFL was to delete. Note: creator, User:BrianBeahr, an indef blocked sockpuppeteer, has not been notified. Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:St Kilda Football Club 100 Goals In A Season edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Kilda Football Club 100 Goals In A Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary milestone that only increases template clutter (eg see the bottom of the Tony Lockett article). Template is already basically covered by Template:St Kilda Football Club Leading Goalkickers. Consensus at WT:AFL was to delete. Note: creator, User:BrianBeahr, an indef blocked sockpuppeteer, has not been notified Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Starfleet officer rank insignia/Text edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G8. Mhiji 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Starfleet officer rank insignia/Text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For some reason this was declined speedy, despite it being a subpage of the deleted page Template:Starfleet_officer_rank_insignia (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_21#Template:Starfleet_officer_rank_insignia). Mhiji 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lamberhurst edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lamberhurst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One of a series of un-needed template for villages and towns in the English county of Kent. Like the others, this one had been padded out with links to people who Lamberhurst were minor details in their lives, so I removed them; and I also removed a series of links to mills which were in subsections of the same article (contrary to WP:NAVBOX: "avoid repeating links to the same article within a template"). That cut the size from 13 bluelinks and one red, down to one red and the remaining 4 bluelinks which are already linked from the head article Lamberhurst, a short article which serves as an adequate navigational hub.
See also discussions at WT:KENT, and many more similar deletion discussions at TfD Dec 19, TfD Dec 20 and TfD Dec 30. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SPIevidencebottom edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SPIevidencebottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SPIevidencetop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SPIhistorybottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SPIhistorytop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All four of these templates, designed for cases at WP:SPI, are completely unused. Moreover, if something needs to be collapsed in an SPI case page, one can easily use the universal {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates for that. –MuZemike 21:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Waddingtons edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waddingtons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This recently created navbox lists the games which were published in the UK by Waddingtons. As far as I can tell, Waddingtons doesn't own any of these games, it just bought the UK publishing rights to them (mostly from Hasbro, if not exclusively). The author of the navbox inserted it onto many articles on games which are owned by Hasbro. It seems unnecessary to add a navbox to a game article for every company that was ever licensed to publish that game. In some cases (like Risk and Monopoly), this would lead to dozens of navboxes at the bottom of the article. If anything, Waddingtons should be added to {{Hasbro}} (since it is now owned by Hasbro, according to the article), and this navbox should be done away with, especially considering it has more redlinks than bluelinks. SnottyWong chatter 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originator of the navbox here. User:Snottywong is mistaken in that the licensing of several of the games flowed the other way, from Waddingtons (as originator or rights purchaser of UK invented games) to Hasbro. As things stand deleting the navbox would leave several articles without one; merging it with {{Hasbro}} would make some sense given the 1994 takeover (see Waddingtons). On the matter of redlinks, that's something of a red-herring: all are worthy of an article. -Arb. (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point. It just seems duplicative and redundant to me that every article with a Waddingtons navbox also has a Hasbro navbox, especially given that Hasbro owns all of the games (whether or not they've owned the games since their origin doesn't seem relevant). SnottyWong verbalize 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However "every article with a Waddingtons navbox" does not "also ha[ve] a Hasbro navbox"; including the Waddingtons article itself, five of the first six blue links have only {{Waddingtons}}, which is what led me to create it in the first place. And on further reflection, "It seems unnecessary to add a navbox to a game article for every company that was ever licensed to publish that game." seems mistaken as well; it is perfectly reasonable for a navbox about a company to both include and be included in the article for every product which has been significant to that company's history. Now if you want to talk about whether a company that has been merged should share a navbox with its new owner, well that would be fine but this is the wrong forum for such a discussion. -Arb. (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to keep and to oppose merge as some of the games were probably discontinued by Waddingtons before the Hasbro takeover, so they were never Hasbro games. I'm not so sure about all the redlinks, though -- I own four of them and at first guess would not have considered them notable; what are the criteria? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove red links. Mhiji 19:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

License template unused by any files on Wikipedia. If any of these files need to be copied back here, it can be done under the terms of the GFDL or migrated CC-BY-SA-3.0. Kelly hi! 03:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - with all due respect to uploader and message on talk page, this template is unneeded. The only major difference between cc-sa and cc-nc-sa is that nc doesn't allow commercial derivatives. Paradoxically, GFDL does. After license migration to cc-by-sa, the template as such contradicts itself. Replace with {{Self|cc-by-sa-2.0|GFDL-with-disclaimers|migration=redundant}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cleanup edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Okay, the problems I see with this template. 100% of the time, I just see it slapped on by an editor who never bothers to explain what needs cleanup or why. What's more

  • It has a "reason" parameter, which would allow explanation and make the template somewhat useful, but the docs discourage use of that!
  • Although the template says "the talk page may contain suggestions", literally every instance I've seen has involved little to no discussion about actual cleanup on the talk page. (See WP:CTC.)
  • Every instance of "cleanup" I've seen in my time on Wikipedia has meant one or more of the following: basic copy-editing, restructuring, rewriting, reformatting, changing inappropriate tone, removing POV content, converting a list to prose. Every single instance I mentioned already has its own, more specific template at WP:TC.
  • Even the more specific cases of cleanup that I've not witnessed personally have their own tags. Things like "too many 'see also's", "too many links", "this article is a schedule", "this section may need to be removed", "the further reading section needs cleanup" — every possible issue that an article can have is covered by some sort of template, at least as far as I can tell.
  • WP:TC itself even says to use {{Cleanup}} "when none of the more specific tags fit". As I said, every possible form of cleanup has its own tag, so in what possible situation would none of the literally dozens of specified cleanup tags fit?
  • As with

So in short, {{cleanup}} seems to be almost entirely, if not entirely, overlapped by a massive amount of more specific and useful templates. Much like {{expand}}, which was finally deleted for similar reasons, I feel that this template is vague, redundant and unhelpful. There are tons and tons of far better outlets to ask for an article to be fixed up besides slapping {{cleanup}}. This template was kept via TFD before, but I feel at least part of it was because the nominator did not elaborate their reasoning and most of the "keep" !votes argued that it should be kept just because it's so widely used. Well, so was {{expand}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's not the best template to use in most cases. But it is very useful for even totally unsiklled beginners who want to mark that something seems badly wrong, but do not know the unbelievably complex maze of specific templates. Then someone else can go round and do things more precisely. If we eliminate general problem templates like these what is someone to do who knows there are problems, but does not know just how to indicate them? DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The beginners should improve articles instead of slapping warning templates. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also. Why place half a dozen specific templates when one general "Requires cleanup" could be used in their place. Often it's obvious what needs to be done on the article to clean it up, and littering the top of the articles with multiple other templates wouldn't really highlight anything non-obvious or motivate editors to edit. --AerobicFox (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen an article that needed half a dozen specific templates. Nor have I seen a case where the cleanup was blatantly obvious from just the {{Cleanup}} tag. Besides being convenient to n00bs, what purpose does this template serve that others don't? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the only people who can tell if an article needs cleanup is a user who is hyperfamiliar with every cleanup template? WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY on that. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TPH: So far as a newpage patroller, my record is having to tag an article with 11 different templates (though only about two of them were issues which isn't covered by "cleanup"). Granted about an hour later I'd managed to reduce it to 2 or 3. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you remove all the general tags, then no tags will be on any articles that need it. Because yes, people are lazy and just slap "Expand" or "Cleanup" on things. If you remove these templates, then loads of articles will have NO tags, when they need them. While it may be obvious to certain editors that an article needs help, if there isn't a tag saying the article fails, some people might think that the article ISN'T bad. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep let me get this straight, if we have no specific template for a cleanup that is required, then the article should remain as bad as it is, because we have no way to indicate that it needs cleanup? So... we should not indicate that articles are broken, since there is no way to do so. As you seem to be saying that if the specific cleanup template doesn't currently exist, it doesn't need cleaning up, that's a rather large leap in logical fallacy. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is no specific HTML cleanup tag. {{wikify}} claims to do this job, but the text of the message only indicates that it should be used to add internal links, clearly not an HTML cleanup tag, which editors remove when links have been added, without wikicode conversion of HTML. So no, there are not actually cleanup tags to specify common cleanup cases. Indeed there is proof that people think that "wikify" is only for adding internal links, right here a few days ago on TfD, where it was cited as redudant with "dead end". 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are plenty of times it is difficult to work out exactly what is wrong with an article. Deleting this template will leave thousands of articles that need a little bit of care and attention unmarked and unfindable. I have edited articles on netbooks and other small devices where one can't do advanced template fixing. There doesn't seem to be a good template for "this has a bunch of minor, difficult-to-specify problems that just need cleaning up". The good thing about it is that it is deliberately vague; this is a feature not a bug. —Tom Morris 05:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. This is a lot less abused than the late expansion template but it's still critical for the new user who is unsure of what should be done to an article but knows that something needs to be done to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep specific templates do not eliminate the usefulness of a general template. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep omg I can't believe it's being nominated again. There is nothing wrong with being non-specific! Sorry I'm just frustrated, we just went through the same thing with the {{expand}} template. -- œ™ 09:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I actually use it quite a lot and I'm not exactly a noob. When an article at first glance is blatantly poorly written and/or formatted, such as the good faith efforts of very young editors or non native English speakers, it's an invite to improve it without it immediately becoming part of the GOCE backlog. Kudpung (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too generic to be useful, in my view. But it seems that view is very much a minority. I understand many people use this template, but would it really be that much extra effort to take a moment to find a more specific template to use in each particular case? Robofish (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or replace with a hidden category, templates are useful if they warn readers, or attract new editors to fix things. This template does neither, if people think that this template serves a purpose then a hidden cat would be a better replacement. If a little of the effort that currently goes into tagging articles with these templates and then trying to work out why they have been so tagged was instead spent improving articles it would be a net positive. ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and how does it not attract editors to fix things? What will certainly not call attention to new editors is a hidden category! DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there already is a hidden category. Rich Farmbrough, 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: this nomination is a great example of how Perfect is the enemy of good. Yes, more specific reasons would be better, but having some indication of problems is better than none. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think that non-specific templates make the article look obfuscated? Artem Karimov (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is one of the most familiar templates. I'm sure most all NPP have used it at least once. While I agree that we should all specify a reason for cleanup, this is no reason to delete this template Tarheel95 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. We have to differentiate between New Page Patrollers, and New Page Repairers. The two tasks may overlap a little for minor tweaks, but the major tasks are ones which we chose or decide to do. There are strong reasons why NPPers, especially the relatively experienced ones, may not/should not stop to spend hours repairing every very low quality page they come across. The Clean Up cat remains a list of pages that one can address when one feels like it, or is committed to it.--Kudpung (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep serves an important purpose; nominator's reason that people often don't list statement of what needs cleanup is not a reason to eliminate the template but rather to find a way to get people to state reasons (though since often it is added because the article needs grammar and spelling and paragraphing and structure changes and headings and a dozen other obvious items we may not want all of them listed.) RJFJR (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong snow whatever keep 1. Don't delete it if people misapply it or don't use talk pages. 2. When a page is crappy but fits the inclusion criteria, it's nicer to use one main tag rather than seven specific ones. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the multitude of reasons given above. Wizard191 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep-What's wrong a generic template that informs readers that the article has issues?Smallman12q (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep - useful when there are multiple issues that need to be addressed and therefore no need to clutter the article with 16 "specific" tags. If an editor comes across the tag and cannot see what might be in need of cleanup, then remove the tag - the issue has been resolved. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out Banana, WP:SPEEDYKEEP states that a speedy keep is only considered in the case of bad-faith / disruptive nominations or nominations made by banned users. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As obvious as it often it is it is still a needed tag.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's as useful as any other maintenance tag in pointing out issues which others may be able to address, and where the type of cleanup required is difficult to subcategorise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was a bad reason to delete expand, and it would be a bad reason to delete this template. It is always possible to have more finely grained clean up templates. The down side is:
    1. people then need to know more than the maybe 6 basic cleanup templates.
    2. We get stacks of templates, which we are trying to avoid
    3. General cleanup is missed because one item is singled out

Rich Farmbrough, 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep, based on the other keep reasons already given. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template does not serve any purpose. What is generic 'cleanup'? I do not know. I know copy-editing, proofreading etc but not 'cleanup'. Artem Karimov (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might as well be a banner saying 'this article is crap'. No suggestions on how to improve it, just a slightly less pointless template than 'expand'.--EchetusXe 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: that's what I use it for, as a general "this article is crap" marker. If it were properly formatted but POV, I'd mark it POV. If it were well-written but lacked internal links, I'd add "wikify". For me, {{cleanup}} means "messed up like a football bat." MatthewVanitas (talk)
  • Delete. It's an eyesore and too general. I've been trying to "cleanup" the Taking Back Sunday article for months now, but I have no idea where to start since the template doesn't give me enough information. It's annoying and frustrating. WereWolf (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd start with the Timeline section, which is just a giant spew of "invalid attribute" output from a broken template. That actually seems like a pretty good use of the cleanup template, assuming whoever put it there doesn't know how to fix whatever's broken. 28bytes (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. too vague and not useful --Zr2d2 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep. It's really useful, if I see this template it generally forces me to clean up the page, I presume it works the same for most people. I really don't see why this template is up for deletion. -That Ol' Cheesy Dude (Talk to me people) Additional: This template was considered for deletion half a year ago and it was a relatively unanimous vote towards Keep.
  • Keep; Fetchcomms, Tom Morris and 184.144.163.241 above have beat me to the points I was going to make. 28bytes (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all the reasons already said. In particular: If the docs discourage reason= when they shouldn't, apply {{sofixit}} to the docs. • If lack of specificity is the problem, I don't see how "delete the template" is a sensible solution. • Perhaps introduce a template variant which makes reason= and/or discuss= mandatory, and begin an effort to migrate use to that template. • Yes, people abuse this template. People abuse everything on Wikipedia. Abuse in inherent in "anyone can edit". Deletion doesn't solve that problem. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have seen a lot of articles with a tag cleanup, but never do any of them explain why and it is almost impossible to tell whether the tag should be removed when some revisions have been done. Besides, it practically incentivizes people to tag an article and leave it for others to revise. And how does that method work? Well, I have seen a lot of cleanup tags dating from 2007 and even earlier. You see a problem and you should correct it yourself.--Netheril96 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone's feeling bold now that the Expand template is being deleted. But the cleanup template is far more useful and specific than Expand. Deleting a template like this one is like cutting your arm off because it itches. Don't like the discouraged use of the Reason parameter? Have the docs rewritten. Heck, make the parameter mandatory. No further info on the talk page? Fine. Delete the template and/or ask the user who tagged the article to provide an explanation. Misuse of a template is poor grounds for deletion. Nominator's last three bullet points say almost the exact same thing three different ways. So as for all the templates on WP:TC, there's way too many of them. You can't expect your average user to wade through all those templates or memorize them. Heck, I wouldn't! And of course, there's always the situation in which that none of them fits exactly or too many of them fit exactly so it would be easier to use the general cleanup template and just leave a message on the talk page. I find it to be a simpler solution to do just that.
Also worth noting if this template does get deleted: the more specific and useful {{cleanup-section}} has been deprecated and folded into the general cleanup template. So if the closing admin determines consensus to be delete, then please consider recreating {{cleanup-section}} as the section expand template is still around. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, barring that, rename to {{idontlikeit}}, because that's exactly the function it serves. This template has long outlived its usefulness in the days when there were only a handful of what were then called "boilerplate" messages. The message the tagger is trying to get across varies from "there are so many things wrong with this article I'd otherwise be flooding it with one tag after another" to "something about this article just makes me uncomfortable, but I can't put my finger on it" to virtually anything else the tagger could conceivably be trying to say. szyslak (t) 05:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all those !voting delete because this is too generic... please explain that reasoning, since there is a parameter to specify what needs fixing. How is a cleanup template with a specified reason "too generic for any use" ? 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Very useful template. We need to tag problem articles and sometimes a detailed explanation isn't required: most of them are obvious. That there are too many articles that need it isn't the fault of the template. Don't shoot the messenger. Shadowjams (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, and knock some sense into placers of such tags. Every "keep" argument above effectively boils down to: "I like using this tag to deface articles I don't like, instead of improving them, even though most readers are unable to fix the article and the majority of those who can are uninterested (as evidenced by the tag remaining on for years)." The very idea of abusing article space for messages to other imagined editors is flawed. Often I've found that the best way to cleanup an article having this tag is to remove the tag. If there do exist editors who like seeing this tag and actually improve articles that they otherwise wouldn't, we can devise some opt-in system so that only they see such tags… but undertaking to distract all readers, just because you sat in judgment of some article and decided you didn't like it, is not productive. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed in the deletion debates to a lot of these widely used templates, that the problem doesn't lie so much with the templates themselves but with the process of tagging articles with templates. This is obvious with how the big argument is how people misuse templates and how bad they look on pages. Another argument is how the people use them instead of performing the maintenance task themselves (never mind that an editor might not feel comfortable enough with the article's subject matter to edit it or just not have the time to do it right). Since the problem seems to be mostly about the process of tagging articles, I hope someone considers doing an RFC or something similar instead of just proposing deletion to templates that are actually useful. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template is better than nothing, and without a general template like this, WP:TC, already a mess, will triple in size when everyone adds their own versions. – Acdx (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DragonHawk. It would be good to change the documentation to recommend the use of the parameter, as well as to suggest narrower templates when possible (with an actual list). CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If someone is not sure why an article's been tagged they can always remove the template (hopefully with an edit summary), replace it with a more specific template, or bring up concerns at the article's Talk page. For situations where there are multiple clear problems with an article this template seems a reasonable alternative to multi-tagging, especially for those editors unfamiliar with the available templates and disinclined to go digging through documentation. Doniago (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Sorry, but I can't see what so many of you see in this generic, vague, unhelpful, space-wasting template. Every time I've seen one of these templates, I've scanned the whole article looking for what needs cleanup, and I can never find anything. I'm referring, more specifically, to the template tagged to Divisibility rule. What use is there for a cleanup template which doesn't explain what needs cleanup, and for that matter, doesn't even allow explaining what needs cleanup? It's like if a janitor was asked to clean out a school classroom but not being told specifically what needs to be done, what needs to go where, etc. He'd have nothing to go on, and the students and teacher would walk into the classroom the next morning to find it still a pigsty. Quite simply, we need some kind of {{multiple issues}} template, only geared more towards cleanup, and not some worthless waste of space which tells the average editor next to nothing. Black Yoshi (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why templates have a date parameter. The cleanup tag on Divisibility rule is dated August 2010. If you would've bothered to check the history back to August 2010 you would've discovered exactly why the tag was placed: [1] And you would've also noticed that it's already been cleaned up (somewhat) since then. The problem isn't with editors who place a cleanup tag, it's with those people who don't bother to REMOVE it after the article has been cleaned up! Always check the date on a tag, if it's been sitting there for years it's highly likely whatever the issue was has already been fixed and it's usually safe to remove the tag. -- Ϫ 22:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but maybe I would have been able to figure that out if the template weren't so generic and vague. "Clean up this article" is about as specific as "This article needs expansion." Where does it need cleaning up? Give this template some more information parameters, THEN it will become useful. Until then, I'm sorry, but it's a waste of space and it needs to go. Black Yoshi (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If your problem is that the template is vague, then why delete? Deletion should be reserved for when there's no way the template can be changed to address the concerns. There's been a lot of talk about the laziness of "drive by tagging". It's just as lazy to delete a template rather than fix it.--Jtalledo (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why delete? Because to the average newbie Wikipedian such as myself, it's next to impossible to fix the template -- it takes a rocket scientist to remember all the coding needed to fix a template. (If any of you have the tools, or know how to edit these things, please explain.) I find it next to impossible to fix a template when the article it's tagged to only displays the coding for applying the template, not the template itself. Black Yoshi (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's generic to the point of being useless. In fact, only {{expand}} beats this one in terms of uselessness. However, if this is kept, at least consider making the "reason" parameter mandatory. In most of the instances where I've seen this template the reason for it being there is not immediately obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 5, 2011; 17:35 (UTC)
  • Keep I say keep because it is a red flag to an article but is not very helpful unless paired with a specific template. Case in point, my involvement in the Eddy Gordo article. Prior to becoming an editor I thought the article was perfect as a reader, a few months after I read it I saw someone tagged the article with a Cleanup tag. I did nothing as I was not an experienced editor at the time (I became a member in July 2008, the clean up tag was added in December of that year). But as I grew as a Wikipedian, I learned that the tag was true and after an IP restored the article after it was merged, I took a good look at the Cleanup tag and then at the article and went to work. It's been minimal work but without the Cleanup and "Reference Needed" tags I wouldn't have taken interest to improve the article. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: with respect to the balls it took for the nominator to take such a bold move, I don't think the rationale holds up. While being vague is generally not the best, it's usually better than nothing. Many others cite that the most prominent users are those unexperienced and those that are lazy/apathetic, and deleting this template won't fix the issues for either. The n00bs won't really know where to go for more specific tags, and the rest will either ignore issues or use the first tag they can think of (which in turn will get ignored if it's a bit inaccurate). Either way, the article problem goes unresolved and likely unnoticed by editors and readers who should probably be aware.
However, Ten Pound does raise a trenchant point, that the template does have issues. I think that there should be some kind of way to strongly encourage users to use more specific templates. Perhaps we could merge it with {{multiple issues}} or link to the list or something. Regardless, the issue is a social one about how tagging and cleanup is done, and deleting this one probably isn't the best resolution. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's not being used properly, that is, with the issue being recorded on the talk page, "delete" the user, not the template. --Bsherr (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No kiddin'. Or just go to the user's talk page and simply ask them why they placed the tag! And if there's no response or they're inactive, and you can't find any reason for the tag being there, then just remove the bloody thing! it's not hard. -- Ϫ 23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That there are more specific templates does not make this template bad! • Anakin 19:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Many arguments I'm seeing here are based off of the fact that the template is widely used. But just because it is widely used, it doesn't justify keeping it necessarily. Every single time I've ever seen this template, there has been no discussion as to why it has been placed and it tends to be very, very old. The reason param is rarely if ever filled out so it just sits at the top of the article like a sticker of shame. Even for beginning editors, it isn't hard to find something more specific like {{wikify}} or {{refimprove}}. The template is old and has no real justifiable use so that I why I think it should be deleted. TheFSAviator ( T • C ) 22:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you never come across articles that need sections, links, spelling, caps, grammar, tone, decrufting, layout and more. The choice is between half a dozen tags or one. Not sure how "The template is old" finds its way into your reason for supporting deletion. Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I have indeed come across many articles that need work, but the point is this can be noted by various other templates. The way that "the template is old" fits in isn't that it's simply an old template, but it was from a time when WP was much smaller and there weren't as many templates. The job is now done better by other templates, and therefore this template just shouldn't be around. Also notice the backlog of 400K articles listed under "Category:Articles needing cleanup". It's very similar to the case of {{expand}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is simple enough for new editors to figure out or guess to use. To a new editor finding the right template at WP:Template Messages can be very intimidating, if not impossible, due to the large number of templates to choose from. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Admittedly superseded by more complex templates, but my friend DGG has the point. New editors need something to use before they learn how to use, say, {{Multiple issues}} (which I'm still not good at). If someone just slaps this down and doesn't bother to explain themselves, it can and should be removed, and perhaps language to that effect should be added to the template documentation. But it doesn't need to be deleted. Used less, but not deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. I use this template myself on newpage patrol. Rarely, but I do. Sometimes, there are things that need to be done and for which there is no specific template to cover problems that I find in articles. It's good to have a "generic" template like this one in such situations. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this general-use template. It is a legitimate option for newer editors especially. It is much better than not tagging an article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per "general use" arguments. Also, I consider it a very bad idea to delete something so much in use Purplebackpack89 03:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is exactly what Ten Pound Hammer was talking about -- "I consider it a very bad idea to delete something so much in use," says Purplebackpack89. Where's your evidence? Just because it's in use all over the site is not a legitimate reason to keep such a vague, useless waste of space. Sure, some of you like it because it's "generic" -- but the problem is, it's far too generic to be of any real use whatsoever. If you're going to keep this waste of a template, at least modify it to allow for some sort of explanation, rather than simply, "Clean up this article." Black Yoshi (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does allow for an explanation. There's a |reason= parameter. -- Ϫ 15:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I generally see it used on articles that need extensive work not falling under one, or even two or three other templates.Goldfritha (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it suffers from many of the problems that saw {{expand}} get deleted there are some differences. Arguably every article needs expansion, but not every article needs clean-up (which makes this tag less redundant). Expand could quite easily be replaced with one or at most two new templates whereas some clean-up articles would require many more (which would clutter the article up even more). It is much easier to clean up an article than it is to research new information to expand an article (which should mean the problem is fixed sooner). In saying that some of the advice above about improving the template should be heeded. Namely making "reason" compulsory and maybe automating a way to remove current tags that do not supply one. AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there was a {{broken wiki markup}} or similar, that could probably replace many instances, but I know of no such extant template. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The tag is not useful. Clean up requests belong in plain text on the talk page. If a randomized study was performed to show that articles slapped with this tag are actually more likely to be cleaned up than ones without then I'd reconsider. —Pengo 07:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the nominator indicates, this doesn't seem likely to actually help improve the encyclopedia. It's too vague and it can be unclear what the tagger is suggesting needs help. Hobit (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As suggested above, if this is kept, at least consider making the "reason" parameter mandatory. In most of the instances where I've seen this template the reason for it being there is not immediately obvious. Hobit (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously a template that is needed. Though some of the ideas for improving the "cleanup" template sound pretty good. --Taylor Karras (talk | contribs | Rcool35) 10:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A red flag that, although it is imprecise to the extreme, still provides users with a method of saying "out of the 3.4 million articles we have, this is one of those that needs a helping hand". There are plenty of more specific templates that can be used, but quickly slapping it on a page in passing during browsing is convenient and does mark the article as unsatisfactory. Plus it also leaves a mark in the user's contributions page, so that they can go back to it if they have the time without cluttering their watchlist. Brammers (talk/c) 10:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful template that marks articles that need general cleanup overall. Dough4872 11:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not exactly sensible, or even understandable to me, for anyone to be arguing that people who have so little knowledge of wikipedia that dumping this template on an article is about all they can master, are the same people who should be trusted in properly judging whether an article needed 'cleaning up' or not. The false positive rate in that regard must be absolutely staggering, it probably takes more man hours to remove wrongly placed tags than it does to do a rough and ready quick clean up of the correctly tagged ones. Thus it is a net waste of time, which only cumulatively increases with greater usage. Being usable by n00bs is the only real claim to utility this tag has, but are they serving a purpose by tagging, or just wasting their time? It strikes me that if an article is in such an absolute state that anybody passing would notice, whether Wikipedia competent or not, then that is going to be obvious to any experienced editor passing too. In that regard, a tag stating the obvious to them is completely pointless. If an article has more subtle issues, which only experienced editors would notice, then for those editors who are minded to just tag and run, then to save wasting the time of those who can and do cleanup properly identified issues, then for the love of God, use a specific tag to give them specific information, or if there genuinely are multiple issues, use {multiple issues} (or maybe we need {multiple cleanup} if that's too harsh?). If there are any cleanup editors who are actively seeking out this tag to find jobs why are you wasting your time? Why aren't you working on the more specific backlogs? If general cleanup is really what floats your boat, then even ignoring all the other venues, just clicking the Random Article button 30 times will generate as much work for you as randomly selecting 10 articles marked for 'cleanup' and working on the ones which were correctly tagged, and doesn't deface the pedia for simple readers into the bargain. In the case for keeping which argues that using this tag is good to entice those readers into become editors, then without filling out the reason parameter at the very minimum, the tag is very obviously going to be completely pointless. In that regard, I could be persuaded to change to keep if filling out the reason paramater was made mandatory (with a bot automatically removing it where not filled in), but without that, this trinket is as much use in the grand scheme of things, taking everybody's time and everybody's Wikipedia user experience into account, as {expand} ever was, i.e. none at all. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "The false positive rate in that regard must be absolutely staggering, it probably takes more man hours to remove wrongly placed tags than it does to do a rough and ready quick clean up of the correctly tagged ones" .. That's simply not true. In my two and a half years of browsing random articles and working in the maintenance categories I can honestly say that I have never seen a cleanup template placed on a page that didn't have something wrong with it. I've found many instances where a tag is stale, ie. the issue was resolved in the past and the user just neglected to remove the tag, or where cleanup was used where perhaps a npov tag should have been, but never seen a cleanup tag deliberately placed on an otherwise decent, tidy article. So I'm unsure what you mean by "wrongly placed tags" because pretty much any problem with an article can be considered as needing "cleanup", and that's the beauty of a general templates such as this, they can't, in good faith, be "wrongly placed". -- Ϫ 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The template wording is not 'this article has something wrong with it'. Per the actual template wording, the 'cleanup' required is supposed to refer to Manual of Style issues, which, while a broad church, does have limitations. As explained further in the the link on the template to Wikipedia:Cleanup - "Cleanup issues that this project covers may include wikification, spelling, grammar, tone, and sourcing.". Therefore, the template is not supposed to cover things like NPOV, or anything else you might be including with the 'something' comment. Spending the time to correct those misconceptions is nothing but pointless busy work. And in my four years of experience of seeing this thing splattered all over the place, not only can this tag be placed wrongly, I've even seen it used as an 'add on', where someone tags something for NPOV issues or OR issues, and then simply adds the cleanup tag above it, as if this makes the issue more urgent. Yet more pointless busy work. And the fact that editors don't even know when to remove it once they have apparently 'cleaned' the article to whatever standard you are using for a 'decent' article, only shows how little part it plays in the process. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a lot of what you term to be "pointless busy work" can be automated. Use a script or a bot to remove the tag on articles that have been tagged for years (article might be clean already), have empty talk pages or have been tagged with more specific tags. As the parent post said, a bot can also be used to remove clean up templates from newly tagged articles that don't have the reason parameter filled out. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This would seem rather precipitous to me, assuming that just because a template is old means the underlying issue has been resolved. Given that the template usage did not require discussion at the Talk page or use of the reason parameter, it similarly seems questionable to me to assume the template is not merited merely because one or both of those optional items was not used. Doniago (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about merit. All it does is address the issues that those who lean towards deletion have espoused. That is, the backlog of articles and the issue people have with seeing the template without any additional explanation. It's an imperfect, but better solution than deleting the template completely. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This just sounds like busy work for bot ops. And we are short on bot ops to do actual real work as it is. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's a trivial matter to get all the thousands of instances of this template deleted from articles, but it's an arduous task to get a smaller subset of them deleted (keep in mind that the dated tags are categorized already)? --Jtalledo (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it would be, if using a bot. Such basic admin deletion bots already exist. Your 'make this template a little less sucky' bot doesn't however. MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a rather "junior" editor, this tag is a nuisance. I see it all the time, but the articles seem perfectly fine on occasion, and I have no idea on how to contribute. I do encourage "cleaning up," but as a broad term, how am I supposed to pinpoint what is exactly wrong? Tags that actually show what you need to do tend to help, as they at least point me in a general direction. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extra Comment. Having multiple tags, it is far easier to fix those problems, as they will be eliminated one at a time, rather than having the same tag loom over an article without any idea of what to do. Maybe make "clean up" a drop down list with various tags.Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely useful template which serves its purpose. Also, it's really convenient to use, because it prompts users to clean up the page – I've used it myself, and I've done so myself when I've seen the cleanup template. HeyMid (contribs) 13:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The issue is the userbase, not the template. If it's really such a problem, then make leaving out the 'reason' parameter tack on a message, so the end result is more like "x may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, but no specifics for this has been given. Please check for issues and edit as necessary." ~ Shadow148 (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent suggestion! And a good compromise, much better than impeding progress by making the reason parameter mandatory. -- Ϫ 16:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, if the template is used like that then it will warn those who use the template to put specifics so that it can't be removed due to redundancy. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It might be overused, but it still has a purpose, and it's easy to remember without worrying about which of dozens of specific templates is best. Perhaps we need a drive to more specifically categorise the articles marked with it, but simply getting rid of it doesn't help. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Problems with implementation ≠ problems with the template itself. I see no reason this runs afoul of our regs on templates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn it, or just delete. It's too generic and imprecise to convey any useful information to readers or editors and there is always another tag that would be more useful. The userbase may be the problem, but if 99% of it's users are misusing it, that's a problem with the template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Burn it", isn't that the same thing as delete? HeyMid (contribs) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but per Shadow148, make the reason parameter much more useful. I've come here after seeing the template in use on the Metropolitan District Railway article. I think that whomever tagged the article in March 2010 thinks that the list should be tidied and/or converted to prose and the article expanded, but I'm not sure - but this doesn't mean that the cleanup tag is not useful just that using the reason parameter would make it more useful. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This displays another wholly disturbing aspect of this template, the way it facilitates, even encourages, pure laziness in the experienced tagger, and forces counter productive wastes of effort in others following up behind, simply by existing. In this case it was not placed by some n00b who really needed the simplicity of only knowing one tag format to highlight what they saw as an issue. Nor was it a case of an experienced editor doing a quick drive by as he didn't have the time to do anything else. In this case, the placer of the tag editted the article for nearly an hour, and was an editor with over four years experience. And even he did not take the time to explain what the issue was when placing the tag. And in terms of discussion pointers, the talk page is as blank as the day it was created. Both you and I, and God knows how many others, have wasted time delving through the history, and are none the wiser. Your guess as to what it might have meant is simply something any experienced editor could have figured out in seconds on first seeing the article, with or without the tag. These wastes of space are so commonplace I'm sure many editors would spot the issue before having even read the tag, as ignoring them becomes second nature. It's completely pointless. Yet, at the same time as they placed the cleanup tag though, they also placed a {missing lead} tag, which unlike this, is a very useful and time saving tag, being both bigger, more specific, and it is really really obvious when it has been wrongly placed and should be removed. And surprise surprise, that was an issue that someone did actually get around to fixing. In doing so, they probably did not waste any time second guessing the tagger, and they even helpfully removed the tag when they had finished [2]. Yet the cleanup one remained, like a bit of carelessly dropped litter frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the lead missing tag was deleted since someone supplied a lead, but didn't clean up the rest of the article. The history for this article was less than one page long. Not much to "delve" into. And it's a trivial matter to message the person who placed that tag to ascertain his reasoning - his edit history shows that's he been active this week. But I guess that's far too much trouble for anyone "delving" into a one page article history. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Only the lead missing tag was deleted since someone supplied a lead, but didn't clean up the rest of the article." - yes, and? That was my point. And whether you think it's a quick task to piss around checking histories and messaging the tagger or not (for a single article, out of thousands), the evidence speaks for itself - this specific example was tagged with two tags requiring action. One was fixed within 2 days, the other is still there, 9 months later. It's not rocket science to figure out why. And presumably from your tone you've been spending this last week messaging absent taggers and checking histories, to be able to get on with cleaning all these articles, right? Sure. MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's not rocket science to figure out why." Why bother figuring out when you can ask the user yourself? You already went to the trouble of checking the person's contributions, why leave it at that? I contacted the tagger of this article, which was more than anyone else did. I'm willing to do so and I'm sure I'm not the only one. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You aren't following me at all. That comment referred to the fact it's not a mystery why the cleanup tag has not got that article fixed for 9 months, yet the lede issue was fixed in days. "I contacted the tagger of this article, which was more than anyone else did" - which was exactly my point also. MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason its tagged with the cleanup tag is because the article was a split from Metropolitan Railway and there was a bunch of random (and incomplete) content from that article which doesn't make up a complete sensible article. <shrug> Cleanup seemed appropriate, maybe I should have given a reason. But frankly life's too short sometimes - to some extent there will always be template abuse. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break edit
  • Keep, that it is being used sometimes, or even often, incorrectly is not a reason to delete. It could be modified, for example requiring the use of the reason= field, which would be more useful. But these fixes can be made without deleting the template. --Jayron32 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Because nobody ever really cleans up articles, especially the editor that slapped it on. --Monterey Bay (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unhelpful badge of shame. Template spam harms the project by encouraging editors to ignore the omnipresent templates. I've removed this specific template from dozens of articles that had no problems or had very minor problems. Maybe the problems were more significant when the tag was originally applied (new editors often think that only "authority figures" are allowed to remove stale tags), but I'm not convinced that's what's happening.
    Alternatively (perhaps even preferably), make the template "expire" after a while (e.g., bot removes the template one year after initially applied, or after 100 edits, on the theory that whether or not it was true at the time the template was placed, it probably isn't true any longer).
    Also, editors (especially WP:NPPers) should be prohibited from placing the template on any page created less than a week ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Another great suggestion! and alternative to deletion. An expiry time of one year coupled with Shadow148's idea above would assuage all concerns surrounding this template. These ideas are so much more productive than simply deleting, and far superior to the "make the reason= parameter mandatory" suggestion. -- Ϫ 11:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Make the reason= parameter mandatory. Unless the problems with a page are blatantly obvious, when users just slap on a cleanup tag other editors won't know what needs to be fixed, and they probably just won't bother trying to fix the page at all. Epass (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep sometimes there are no specific problems with articles, they just need to be overall fixed. And often the user who tags it doesn't know enough on the topic in order to fix it. There's nothing stopping other editors from removing it if they feel there is nothing wrong with the article. If an editor removes the tag with an explanation, then the tag can't just be added back on without an explanation unless that user wants to get into trouble. JDDJS (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What topic knowledge? The tag officially refers to Manual of Style issues, not article topic/content issues. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As to the argument that "it's handy for new editors, specific templates are hard to find", what can be said of a new editor who can't even bother looking around for a decent template in subcategories? It's really straightforward even for someone new to WP. The fact that this argument keeps getting included is sort of a point of deleting it, it's a testament to it's vagueness and the tendency of editors to just "slap it on" and leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's what the "Reason" parameter is for. But rather than people trying to improve the template and ensure that it's correctly used, people just want to take the lazy way out and delete it. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per keep arguments above. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JDDJS --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notion of deleting this template is patently ludicrous. It is used frequently by NPPs to let Wikignomes and others know that the page needs work. No sense in deleting this one. (I opposed the deletion of {{Expand}} as well. Ronk01 talk 03:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as Jayron32. In fact, I am in the process of cleaning up some Massachusetts State Highway articles that contain Street Names in the manner that the Connecticut State Highway articles are written. Too bad that the reason for the placement of the tag is not used very often, if at all. Sometimes the reasons for the placement can be determined. Ed (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Hate the tagger, not the tag. 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.145.3 (talk)
  • Keep, per all of the above. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make the reason parameter compulsory - that seems like a good way forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a little {{expand}} applies to almost every article less than B class, and doesn't really help much. This implies the article needs cleanup which means that the article is weird/unbalanced in some way, which only applies to a minority of articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i am one of those editors that slaps on the tag and then moving on. I do this so other editors can have a look at the article and have them "clean it up" the way he/she sees fit. There is nothing wrong with slapping this tag on. If an editor comes by, and sees the tag, it is better to have it on so the probability of having the article improved is higher than not having the tag on at all.
Sometimes, i don't have time to spend a lot of proofreading in an article so i still have to slap the tag on.
I find the tag helpful because i am go through the very old articles that are tagged and then clean them up and remove them. It doesn't matter how experienced you are an editor, if you feel you've cleaned up an article, then you can remove it. If the article was cleanedup, and another editor puts this tag on, then there is still another issue with the article. Then a third eye is required.199.126.224.245 (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, New Page Patrollers have to deal with many inadequate new articles during their patrols and don't have time to clean up each one they come across. So NPPers use this tag to properly categorize articles for future cleanup. If they didn't then the article would probably never get noticed and is even less likely to eventually be cleaned up. -- Ϫ 11:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So new page patrollers should be allowed to tag new pages with {{cleanup}}.199.126.224.245 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making baseless claims about "likely to eventually be cleaned up" — is there any evidence that articles with the tag are more likely to be cleaned up? As I see it, for so-called "New Page Patrollers" to slap this tag on articles without improving it is just to tell the article creator that it's a bad article without saying why, or helping them improve it. Most of these article creators (those whose articles attract this tag, anyway) are newcomers who could potentially become good editors; so the entire New Page Patrolling exercise is simply to bite the newcomers. The earlier we strongly discourage such "patrollers" (who appointed them police, anyway?), the better it is for Wikipedia. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a steep learning curve. It is not fair to baby newcomers and get the more experienced editors to clean up after their messes.199.126.224.245 (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're more likely to be cleaned up because they're CATEGORIZED as needing cleanup, where they'd be more easily FOUND by editors. As opposed to new articles that aren't in any maintenance category, they may as well be invisible and therefore are less likely to be cleaned up. -- Ϫ 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this is circular reasoning, or wishful thinking. I don't see any actual evidence that articles that get this tag are more likely to be "cleaned up" (whatever that means) than articles that don't — that the events you describe actually happen with any frequency in reality. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole back and forth about whether tagging an article makes it more likely for the prescribed task to be performed gets either side nowhere, since there's no way of proving it either way. You could argue this with other templates as well - e.g. a ton of articles that have Unreferenced or Refimprove tags. Can you prove that articles with Unreferenced tags are more likely to be cited? No, because for every article that gets referenced, there's dozens that have this tag and continue to have it for years. Does that mean it's totally ineffective? No. Does that mean it's completely effective? No. So no side benefits from this argument. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if an article can be easily found by those wanting to do cleanup then obviously that article is more likely to be cleaned up than one that can NOT be found. It's not "circular reasoning", it's pure logic. -- Ϫ 10:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like {{expand}}, this is too vague to be useful in any meaningful way. Its vagueness means it is slapped on an article and then ignored. It is too vague to be used by the creator as a guide to how to fix his/her creation. The vast numbers of articles with this tag make it meaningless as a way of categorising future work required. It seems to me the main way this template is used is as follows: 1. Slap tag on article 2. Walk away, job done. If there was a process where a group of editors then used the cleanup category to sort articles into more specific categories, then maybe it would be useful but not as it is. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per WP:NOTNOW (I know where it links. It's supposed to be a joke). We are still working in the world without expand. The tag is too vague but I can't think if any alternative templates on the top of my head. Eventually, it has to be superseded by better tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but include a note in the docs that a message on the article talk page should be included when this template is used giving a general idea of what is wrong. I have found many high-traffic articles where they are clearly written by an ESL speaker. The cleanup template addresses all the issues, without slapping 10 templates on. Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 14:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about {{multipleissues}}? It's one template and does 10 times the work. TheFSAviator ( T • C ) 17:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One thing that could be done to improve the template is to only display it when the reason is specified. If no reason is specified then only add the categories and do not display any message. This way, anyone wanting to do clean up can still find the articles by looking through the categories and anyone reading the article will not be shown a useless message. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly support this proposal, if this template is going to be kept. Good idea. Shreevatsa (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This makes it easier for users to see what are the issues with the page. It's easy to code an enforcement of the reason parameter. If the user who tagged the template doesn't provide a satisfactory reason (such as only a few letters or a few words), the template can be removed from the page. HeyMid (contribs) 10:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The cleanup message should stay on an article because people who skim the article will not know that there are issues.199.126.224.245 (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:What kind of reasoning is that? "...people who skim the article will not know that there are issues." That's exactly the issue we're trying to prevent here, isn't it? We're trying to at least make the template more useful and less overly generic, and therefore encourage Wikipedians to contribute and fix up the article, as well as not to be lazy when applying the template. People will know that there are issues when they see that the Cleanup tag was posted for a reason, not just because the article "may not be up to Wikipedia standards". Black Yoshi (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suspect that the IP above is a sock puppet. HeyMid (contribs) 21:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some people will find an article has issues others will not. If there is a dispute, the tag gets removed, and if the poster disagrees, he can discuss his/her issues.199.126.224.245 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WOSlinker, that's an excellent idea -- finally we'll get some real use out of this template. Black Yoshi (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changed to "Ok, ok, I have an idea! [see below]) Strong keep per the others. Additionally, this template is useful for newbies and for articles that have issues not covered by one specific template. The "hidden-category-only" idea isn't really the best of ideas, because users will either have to look at the bottom of a page to see if it needs cleanup or patrol the hidden category. Having a notice at the top of an article encourages people to help; I know my first edit (made as an IP) was to copy edit an article after I saw {{copyedit}} at the top of the article. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike "copyedit", which does mean something specific — check for grammar and style and formatting — "cleanup" can really mean anything at all, so it's not clear to anyone what needs to be done. Besides, "users will need to look at the bottom of a page" is a good thing: the "users" — by which I mean readers, since they are the majority — are interested in reading the article, not useless messages from lazy editors that they aren't likely to act upon. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to whoever closes this Please be aware that most of the "keep" !votes are "It's useful" and/or "Keep per above". I'm seeing a lot of pile-on "keep per X", but I'm not seeing many (if any) policy based arguments from the "keep" side. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the exact same thing can be said for "delete" people, since they claim it is too general without specifying why, as there is a "reason=" parameter. If that is filled out, it can't be considered too general, as a reason why cleanup is needed has been stated. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the right thing is to make the reason field required... Hobit (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look up at User:Shadow148's post and his suggestion. I'll repeat it here, he writes: "make leaving out the 'reason' parameter tack on a message, so the end result is more like "x may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, but no specifics for this has been given. Please check for issues and edit as necessary." This is so much a better solution than hassling good faithed users by forcing them to provide a mandatory reason. Another suggestion was to have the tag 'expire' after a year if no reason is given. -- œ™ 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And could we please not count "delete/keep per nom" votes? Those aren't supposed to count, but at the moment I can't find the policy that specifies this. TheFSAviator ( T • C ) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not that "delete/keep per nom" !votes aren't supposed to count, but rather that it's just not the best idea to use them (in general). This is because nominations for deletion are supposed to generate discussion, not voting. However, "[i]f the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom'." (That, and the rest of the little summary above were taken from WP:PERNOM, part of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) So in some cases, "delete/keep per nom (or per other editor)" !votes are ok, but not always. In a discussion as controversial as this, I'd say !votes just containing "delete/keep per ____" shouldn't "count", but if a user expands on their position it's ok. Also, there isn't a policy governing "keep/delete per ____" !votes, it's just an essay.
  • Strong delete and replace with more specific tags, I admit I've used this tag already once or twice in my time, but in fact, it probably wasn't that good of an idea. Because it's really almost impossible for others to figure out what I believe isn't that particularly good about the article. As I used it already, I can understand the reasoning why people like to use this template. It's easy, fast and convenient to use. But we should not be too convenient when it comes to improve our articles. Look at it psychologically: If I write a article, not that brilliant, but enough that it doesn't qualify for deletion, and someone puts a Cleanup tag on it, how does that help me? The message "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions." doesn't help me at all. Now you might say that they aren't intended for the article creators, but for other editors willing to clean up articles. Of course it's also relevant to the creator, because they've written it and are interested to write good articles; in fact, even those hated authors promoting their business do want a good article. So if someone complains, then they want to look into that complaint and deal with it. Some people now say that it's not good to put several templates on the article. Oh yes, it is good. Because that tells me where the problems lie. Heck, yes, it doesn't look particularly good, but the cleanup tag doesn't either, and the look of a problematic article is our least problem. So, let's not worry about the bad look. But even if there are multiple tags (though there should only be {{Multiple issues}}), that gives a hint what's necessary. The article creator might then even do it like some checklist and erase the problems one by one. But it's also better for our editors. When I was more active back then, I liked to work on backlogs of certain problematic things that I just simply liked for some reason. However, if everything is just thrown into one corner, then one can't look for their "favorite problem" and fix it up. There's also the point that we have way too many templates and that they're too hard to remember. But I say no, we don't have too many. Wikipedia benefits from diversification in this matter, because they make it easier for you to express what you dislike about the article. If it's hard to remember, then bookmark the Maintenance tags page and look it up if needed or you can use the very cool tool Friendly, which makes tagging easy even for n00bs. I might even go as far as making Friendly a default gadget for all registered users, because it's so helpful. Everything considered, you know, I can definitely understand that it's convenient to just use this template (I told you I used it before), but we owe it to our fellow Wikipedians to be specific about what's bad about our articles. So, let's go the specific way on our mission to tag Wikipedia articles, cause it's about time. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, okay, I have an idea! (This is not a keep !vote or a delete !vote but a change !vote) (sorry for the long bolded !vote, I wanted to get everyone's attention) How 'bout this: If someone puts {{cleanup}} on an article without adding the |reason=... parameter, then the template will not show up on an article, but it will still add the "Articles needing cleanup" category. If someone does add the |reason=... parameter, the template will display, along with the reason given. This will hopefully satisfy the people who dislike the fact that the template is just slapped on articles without regard for whether or not there's a specific template. It will also hopefully satisfy the people who like the fact that the template is general and can be applied to articles with issue(s) not covered by a more specific template. And, third, it will hopefully satisfy those who don't like the idea of making the |reason=... parameter mandatory. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is perfect. Mhiji 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot really have a situation where apparently making a succesful edit to placs a tag results in nothing visually happening, this is simply counter-intuitive, and will just needlessly confuse/aggravate/enrage the n00bs, who are the people who really need to be able to do this, apparently. If there is to be some sort of hard coded require_reason_parameter solution, it should either be done such that the tag cannot be physically placed without it being filled (i.e. the edit cannot be saved), or it is placed but along with a great big red-text warning calling you a dumbass for not filling it in, or the tag is placed as the generic version, but then simply removed later automatically by a bot (c.f. the bot removal of wrongly placed {current} tags), or (and this is probably the worst suggestion I've ever seen in my life), it simply says 'hey guys, there might be something wrong here, but the tagger has declined to say what'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is useful to avoid overtagging since a few tags can be consolidated into this tag for a particularly needy article. Of course care should be used when applying the tag and it is used on a bit more pages than it should, but that isn't to say that it doesn't have its use. ThemFromSpace 23:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 2 edit
  • So is there any real reason to keep besides "It's useful to n00bs"? That's really the only keep argument I'm seeing here besides "Keep but make it mandatory to have a rationale". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I listed three reasons. Basically this seems to be a fight for more granularity, I tagged another article today with a bare cleanup tag, it was a "mixed martial artist" - I could have tagged it copyedit/peacock/tone and peppered it with inline tags, but a simple "cleanup" seemed much better. Note that I did spend several minutes on clean up myself. Many Indian locale articles are similar, the choice is delete it all, fix it, tag it, or partially fix and tag. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Changed to explicitly state that no reason has been given. Also improved documentation to encourage use of "reason" parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • Is there any way to further fix the template to force the use of the "reason" parameter, the way that the PROD template screams in giant red letters if you do not subst it, or the way that ref tags will scream in giant red letters if you don't have a reflist tag? --Jayron32 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support the Giant Red Letters™. --M4gnum0n (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support too. Despite being the nominator here, I think that making the "reason" parameter mandatory is an acceptable compromise. Of course, we'd then have to go through and weed out all the ones where it was just drive-by tagged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. We shouldn't be hassling editors by forcing them to do something that's not absolutely necessary. I don't get why so many are so hopeless unless a specific reason is given.. if you just look for the problem you will find it, it's not hard. Like I said earlier, every single article I've seen with this tag on it had at least something wrong with it, and every time it was plainly evident what the problem is, so I fix it and remove the tag. I didn't need to know what the tagger was thinking because I can see for myself. If you know how a good article is supposed to look like then all you have to do is examine the article and you will see what needs to be cleaned up, you shouldn't need anyone telling you exactly what it is you need to do like you're some hopeless child. -- œ™ 04:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ICC World League 2007-2009 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ICC World League 2007-2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused duplicate of Template:ICC WCL 2007-09 Mhiji 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ifu2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ifu2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. It's not quite as obvious to us as it may be to you. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Political Graveyard has nothing to do with IFU. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Unless this template has some hidden purpose that I am not seeing, it is absolutely useless. Epass (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Indentvote edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move. If this is not a suitable compromise, then I suppose there is MFD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indentvote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as author. We used this in 2008 for the last open Arbcom election, when votes would be indented and removed from the count of votes for a candidate. Since we're using secret ballots now, we don't need to use this template. Since the template was substituted, there aren't any active instances to clean up. Unless it needs to be marked historical due to its use in the election, this can probably be deleted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per UltraExactZZ said, this template is deprecated, and was subst'ed when it was first used, so there's really no used to keep it. As far as I know, the ArbCom elections are the only ones that have suffrage requirements, so this wouldn't really be used by anyone else. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Incredibles characters edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incredibles characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused unnecessary. Links are all redirects to sections in 1 article Mhiji 01:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. It's not quite as obvious to us as it may be to you. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, because the links are all redirects to sections in 1 article... WP:NENAN. Where would it ever be used? Mhiji 12:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete in that case. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Include page edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Include page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The test page at User:Pioneer-12/demos/page concatenation shows how this could be used, but the result is not useful, since references for each article are not combined together at the bottom. Other techniques for page inclusion are more appropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. References can be combined from transcluded pages and often are. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IncludeIfExists edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IncludeIfExists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Don't think it's necessary. Mhiji 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. It's not quite as obvious to us as it may be to you. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to {{#ifexist:<template name>|{{<template name>>}}}}. I cannot see a reason why anyone should want an error message "Page does not exist" appearing, anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's redundant to the ifexist parser function. I'd even go so far as to say speedy delete per T3 --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if needed. It's not wholly redundant. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo Archive edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo Archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. Talk archives are listed on the talk page anyway Mhiji 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template is obsolete, unmaintained, and no longer used on the talk page, the problem with inconsistently named archives was solved in a better way meanwhile.—Emil J. 11:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a hardcoded {{archive box}} with its parameters listed. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:RFC list footer unsorted edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. harej 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFC list footer unsorted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Instruction for listing are at WP:RFC Mhiji 01:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template deleted by myself. It was used for... something, I think, but it somehow priced itself out of the business or something. harej 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Resolved2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resolved2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary Mhiji 01:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Wikiportal:Poland/Selected anniversaries edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiportal:Poland/Selected anniversaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Portal:Poland/Selected_anniversaries exists Mhiji 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Wikiportal:Poland/Did you know edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiportal:Poland/Did you know (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Portal:Poland/Did_you_know exists Mhiji 00:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to Portal namespace. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Wikiportal:Pakistan/Upcoming elections edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiportal:Pakistan/Upcoming elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Out of date. Mhiji 00:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Wikiportal:Japan/Featured edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move to Portal:Japan/Featured article. HeyMid (contribs) 13:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiportal:Japan/Featured (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 00:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Spirituality portal2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spirituality portal2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{Portal|Spirituality}}. Also see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_2#Template:Spirituality_portal Mhiji 00:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Selected portals edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Selected portals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Does not make clear why these portals in particular have been chosen. Mhiji 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Usually portals contain links to other portals but these are normally within the portals own pages. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Portals view: Technology edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portals view: Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Nearly all red links Mhiji 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • please explain why it is unnecessary. I gather they're not all red links. . DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is one blue link, that's why I said "Nearly all red links". It's unnecessary because it's quite blatantly useless. Where would it ever be used? The one blue link there is, to Portal:Pornography isn't even related to technology so shouldn't really be there anyway. I assume at one point it was used or intended to be used for navigation at Portal:Technology, but they now use {{browsebar}} instead. Mhiji 12:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it was just a test anyway (see the history of this template and Template talk:Portals). Speedy delete per G2. Mhiji 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Portal42 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal42 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{Portal|Hitchhiker's}} Mhiji 00:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Redundant. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a lot easier to type out than {{Portal|Hitchhiker's}}, so why don't we just change the template code to {{Portal|Hitchhiker's}} so the thing will transclude the Hitchhiker's portal? If not, then delete. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice idea, but since no-one is using this template at the moment it seems unnecessary and it doesn't look like it will be missed by anybody. Plus, it's not linked to from any where so it's unlikely anyone would type {{Portal42}} anyway especially since the WikiProject is named Hitchhiker's rather than 42, so it doesn't really make sense to keep this. Mhiji 04:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Portal|Hitchhiker's|Science fiction|Cycling|Fish}}

    • Because you can type {{Portal|Hitchhiker's|Science fiction|Cycling}} and get the box on the right. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete redundant and non-standard. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Image Comics Portal edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image Comics Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 00:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Drink portal selected edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Mhiji 12:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drink portal selected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Portal:Drink/Selected articles was previously deleted. This is now unnecessary. Mhiji 00:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The reason Portal:Drink/Selected articles was deleted was because it was created in error. It was replaced with Portal:Drink/Selected article which still exists and is populated with nearly 25 articles. I have fixed several issues and have place this template on the talk pages of the Drink Portal Selected articles it was supposed to go on originally. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jerem43. Mhiji 12:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiPortal Sports and games edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiPortal Sports and games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{portal|Sports and Games}} Mhiji 00:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiPortal Electronic music edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiPortal Electronic music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{portal|electronic music}} Mhiji 00:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiPortal Cellular Devices edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G8. Mhiji 21:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiPortal Cellular Devices (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Links to a portal which doesn't exist Mhiji 00:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bulisa District edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Mhiji 00:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulisa District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Mhiji 00:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_4&oldid=1146551118"