Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 13

< January 12	January 14 >

January 13[edit]

Template:War of the world[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) 01:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:War of the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, created, then apparently abandoned. EmanWilm (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we already have meta-templates like {{Europe topic|List of wars involving|title=Lists of wars involving European countries}} which can handle this if necessary. Most of the links are just redirects, so not very helpful. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:30, 13 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-list[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, but with discussion continuing on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The text of the template says: "... poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate".

We have no protocol (by this I mean policies or guidelines) determining a "poorly defined" list.
We have {{verify section}} for unverified sections.
If the list is "indiscriminate", we have {{trivia}}, {{cleanupsect}}, or we can simply delete the section.
We have no specific category for cleanup-list, but category:sections to have its lists cleaned up could be made.

Bernolákovčina (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That we have no specific cleanup category here is an oversight IMO, and one to be corrected by editing the template to accommodate one. While there are various other cleanup tags with overlapping scope, this particular one has a very useful niche: sections in list format are more prone to attracting trivia or other cruft than any others, and this provides a catch-all style/content hybrid tag to address it. If there's one concern I have it's that we really should merge this with {{cleanup-laundry}}, which overlaps to the extent that there's genuinely difficulty in telling them apart. My own solution would be to merge that one here and rename its (existing) cleanup category to match the broader definition you've given. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the tag applies well to lists that don't have well-defined criteria, such as List of megaprojects. Subsequently, I agree with Chris that is has it own little niche. {{cleanup-laundry}} applies to articles with notability issues, which to me is different than whether it belongs on a list with different criteria. For example, the article I mentioned above covers projects that are more than notable for Wikipedia and those that don't make the "megaproject cut" can still have articles but can't be on the megaproject list. Merging the two tags can make it harder for the potential "fixer" to find the exact problem as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best to have this template specifically for vague lists. Debresser (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hhmmm, Thanks Chris and Nortynort for your comments. Looking at the text of the messages, I think we should bring them closer together. Are there any proposals to change the wording of either template? I do have one proposal concerning {{Cleanup-list}} and that is to change

Please help to clean it up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

to

Please help to make it to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

with "make it" acting as the "edit this page" button as it does currently on {{Cleanup-list}}.Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at the discussion on the template's talk page. If we are in agreement to keep it, the nominator can withdraw this TfD as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That question is indeed being discussed there. I think that counts as a withdrawal of this Tfd proposal. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 15 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.

2010 AFF Suzuki Cup squad templates[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) 01:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indonesia squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malaysia Squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Philippines Squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thailand Squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The competition for which these squad navboxes were created is a regional competition only, whereas the general consensus at WP:FOOTY is that national team squad navboxes should only be created for continental or global competitions such as the UEFA European Football Championships or the FIFA World Cup. – Pee Jay 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 20:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per prior concensus. Navboxes for earlier versions of the AFF Cup have been deleted through similar TfD discussions. Jogurney (talk) 16:45, 14 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:Coast Salish in British Columbia[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) 01:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coast Salish in British Columbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Coast_Salish Mhiji 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This template has been dormant for a long time now with the creation of Template:Coast Salish and became disused when a Coast Salish editor, no longer active, User:OldManRivers (Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish), commented/disliked that dividing indigenous peoples by national/provincial boundaries was inappropriate and more than a bit "colonialist" or "from the settler perspective", especially in this case where the peoples are (or were) as numerous on either side of the border between Washington and British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 19:49, 13 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:Conote[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) 05:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that Wikipedia:RfA talk page coordination, the template to which this applies, has apparently had zero takeup AFAICS and should probably be marked as failed or historical. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:29, 13 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:Content policies[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) 01:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Content policies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer necessary. Policy pages now have page notices which convey the same message (e.g. these) and have the {{policy}} template on the page as well. Mhiji 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unused.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:56, 20 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:Cooldown[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) 05:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Redundant to {{Wikibreak}} Mhiji 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary of deleting user status templates that are in use. I'd rather this were appropriately categorised as a wikibreak template (so that people can find it), styled to match the prevalent wikibreak banner style and left for a bit to check whether adoption increases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe those two user talk pages actually use it and one of the editors has been inactive since 2008, the other since 2009. The template also uses the term "he".--NortyNort (Holla) 03:00, 20 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:Controversial language[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) 03:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Controversial language (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{controversial}} Mhiji 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. In addition, it is not in use. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Adrian (talk) 18:32, 17 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:Controversial-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) 03:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Controversial-Article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. We already have {{disputed}} to add to articles and {{controversial}} for their talk pages. Mhiji 17:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is an 'always' subst: template, of course it is unused. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note as creator, I don't care, made it for some group at the time; not needed as nwewer functions like page notice can do a better job now. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better or equally served with templates indicated by nom. I also put the template in my sandbox and it didn't appear to do anything except put a commented-out code in.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. In addition, it is not in use. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 15 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:Copies[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, the image has been added to Help:Page history, and a shortcut could be created for easy linking, so it appears that this template is no longer necessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Would be better just to provide a link to WP:CWW Mhiji 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's clearly not better to send a new user to a massive guideline page with a bunch of tangential information. That's the whole point of every uw style template. This template is intended to be subst on user talk pages, so it's hard to say how much it is used. Gigs (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's never been used. See here. Mhiji 17:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then start using it, instead of nominating useful templates for deletion. Gigs (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why would I start using it? I've never come across a situation like this and doubt I ever will. Does it even happen? Have you got any examples where people have copied articles to preserve a particular version of the article? I can't think why anyone would use it (or do that). It's far too specific to be helpful. It clearly isn't useful since neither you as the creator or anyone else has used it. Why did you create it if you didn't have a use for it? Mhiji 18:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It happens all the time. Go check out how many incoming links WP:UP#COPIES, WP:STALEDRAFT, and WP:FAKEARTICLE have. Gigs (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see how that's relevant. That section is mainly about user pages that look like articles. WP:STALEDRAFT, and WP:FAKEARTICLE are linked to from MfD all the time, so it's not surprising they get lots of incoming links. Granted it also mentions old revisions. If you can provide even one example of where a user has copied a page just to preserve it's history, not knowing that the software stores copies of old revisions, please do. I'm not convinced this has ever happened or ever will. Even if it does happen once every few years say, per Thumperward, we don't need a template for it, just write a personal message. Mhiji 18:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course it happens, that's why I created the template. Here's one I quickly found by searching MfD for "copy" Wikipedia:Mfd#User:Watemon.2FFMA_Character_List. People "archive" old versions of articles all the time. Gigs (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potential future use can be a compelling argument, but it's hard to make that case here when even the author has apparently never used it in the five months since it was created. The uw- system contains a finite set of well-worn templates which were genuinely needed. Not every user comment needs to be templated, and more complicated issues deserve personal messages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think uw- is due for an update and cleanup actually. Some of those lesser-used templates say things that are very surprising and out-of-date. Gigs (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually linking to WP:CWW would not be as helpful as linking to here. If this template is going to only be used by one user, then userfy. I am having a hard time imagining it being used widely. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth it to use my image there, update the text there to be a little more newb friendly, and give it a shortcut redirect. Then this template wouldn't be needed really. Gigs (talk) 02:56, 14 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:Copyend[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) 03:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 17:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, if you check the talk page, it redirects to Template:copy. If you check the history of Template:copy, you will find this discussion. It appears it should have been deleted when "copy" was redirected, but was never deleted. This template is the "end" for the section started by the old "copy", which was the start (like collapse top/collapse bottom, this was copy/copyend for indicating when a section was copied from one talk page to another). 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:22, 13 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:Consolation Barnstar[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, unused and no planned usage, can be userfied upon request. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Consolation Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, red linked. Mhiji 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've fixed the image, which was missing the File: prefix. Still, though since it wasn't working before, appears as though it's not being used. May want to consider nominating File:Consolation Barnstar.png as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keepThis is something I tried to do but didn't have the patience or the understanding to carry out. I really would like for it to not be deleted. I think it's a worthwhile barnstar and I would like for a more competent editor to take it over for me. I have been alienated from Wikipedia and I don't contribute much anymore. I would like to have something permanent like that to remind people of my short and star crossed tenure as a productive editor. Please make it work.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's probably only going to be you using it, it would probably be better to move it into your userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on using it. I felt sorry for an editor who wrote a serious article about something in his hometown that got deleted due to his arrogant peers. I felt like that probably happened a lot and decided that people who had to experience the heartbreak of people telling them something they were passionate about was not important enough to be on Wikipedia.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 21:09, 18 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:Connexxion lines[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) 03:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Connexxion lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 16:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, not actually sure what it does as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:01, 20 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:Contacts[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) 03:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:02, 20 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:ContactForm[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) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Template:Infobox user will suffice. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:23, 13 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:MLB franchise[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) 03:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear (although, again, I know nothing about baseball). — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's intention appears to be to link a MLB franchise with its minor league affiliates. The team articles now have tables doing this. Reso lute 17:56, 13 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:Longblock[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) 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Other templates exist, which are in fact used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, well-replaced.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:03, 20 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:MLB Home Run Derby[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) 03:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB Home Run Derby (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. (I'm not familiar with baseball at all, so I don't know if this is meant to go on player articles, match articles, season articles, etc. But it doesn't look very useful.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears unfinished, likely abandoned in favour of directly inputting the home run derby tables in the appropriate all-star game articles. Reso lute 17:58, 13 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:MLB All-Star Balloting Results NL[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) 03:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB All-Star Balloting Results NL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Simple sortable tables seem to be in use, e.g. at 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with the others, appears to be a concept template that was abandoned in favour of tables. Reso lute 17:59, 13 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:MCOTW-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, as unused. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MCOTW-article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I believe it is not good practice to place notices such as this one on the article itself, as the CotWs are a Wikipedia-internal process. Such templates belong on article talk pages. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:12, 13 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:PRCollab[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) 03:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not updated since 2006 Mhiji 06:11, 13 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:M60[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) 03:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:M60 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless, unused link template. (Can we somehow find a CSD that covers this sort of thing? This useless stuff just unnecessary clutters up TfD, which is currently flooded with things like this.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark it as T3, redundant to something like Template:Page, or one of the myriad of templates in the "internal linking" category. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, delete --NortyNort (Holla) 03:11, 20 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:M A Haque[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) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:M A Haque (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Useless. Information exists at M A Haque. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:51, 13 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:Lunarsaros db[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, with no prejudice toward future discussion/deletion if template is not properly documented. JPG-GR (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lunarsaros db (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in relation to Saros series templates, like Template:Lunarsaros125_db, etc. It gives descriptive names of the template fields. It might not be needed if I documented the templates correctly. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:16, 13 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:Loreto Council Members[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) 05:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Loreto Council Members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No article seemingly exists on this Mexican municipality. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:37, 13 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:Lorenzo Medici the Elder to Giovanni de' Medici il Popolano[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) 03:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lorenzo Medici the Elder to Giovanni de' Medici il Popolano (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:28, 13 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:Long old current[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) 03:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Long old current (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Too technical in nature. Instead of using this tag, the described action should simply be carried out. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly clearer than a properly-used {{update}} anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:48, 13 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:Commune of Banikoara[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commune of Banikoara (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Red links Mhiji 15:58, 6 January 2011 (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) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appears to be part of a series in Category:Benin subdivision templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I made a few articles. Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep In use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 18 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:Italian cinema under construction[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 09:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian cinema under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This was probably for a one-off article creation drive which has long since ended. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are correct.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy by author approval. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:31, 13 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:Tpccbrte[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 no consensus, since premise of nomination was that it is not in use, but it is in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template; probably imported from zh :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 07:40, 6 January 2011 (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) 04:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is in use on one page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:54, 13 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:KSimagefrombeach[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) 03:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. A global (all-namespace) search for "Ken Sugimori art section" yields no results other than this template, suggesting it has no subst'ing use either. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:27, 13 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:JournProjectTemplate[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 a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Old. Purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This template is germane to the substantial universe of articles that deal with Journalism topics and, if anything, it should be applied to more articles dealing with Journalism and improved upon in various ways. There is an ongoing project on Journalism that this template is part of. It has been placed on many Journalism-related articles and removing it from all of those would represent an undoing of a great deal of the Project's worthy efforts. I also think the Template is of value to the Journalism Portal. Calicocat (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly not correct to place templates such as these (with project to-do lists) on articles, and not a great idea to put them on article talk pages either (unless it is a part of the {{WPBannerMeta}} derivative used by the WikiProject). To-do lists themselves are not bad, it's just that this template implements it as a sidebar (not correct for most purposes) and it is very out-of-date (which makes it not useful). Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If it's really needed, it could be moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:13, 13 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:Jsx[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 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. The JSX is gone - it is now the Indonesian Stock Exchange. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why does that matter? It's not like it never existed, and we document the history of companies, not just their current condition. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the JSX website doesn't exist any more. Why would we want to link to a site which no longer exists? Mhiji 05:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it's orphaned this is no great loss. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as creator). {{Idx}} seems to be an appropriate replacement. Any reference to a company's JSX symbol, though certainly welcome in the history section, would not be frequent or standard enough to need a template, and to where would it link? Rigadoun (talk) 23:38, 14 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:Irish Euro Election Summary Begin[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) 02:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Euro Election Summary Begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. The articles seem to use other templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:03, 13 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:Irish Guards[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) 02:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Guards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by infobox in article Irish Guards. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:00, 13 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:Infrog welcome3[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 03:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infrog welcome3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A personal welcome template by a long-inactive (5 years) user. Probably no longer used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:56, 13 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:Table Unicode[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) 03:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Table Unicode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Unicode navigation}} 8 months ago. Not used in articlespace. DePiep (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, much better navigation template as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:08, 20 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:Inadequate lead[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 no consensus, but those involved are encouraged to continue a discussion on the appropriate template's talkpages. JPG-GR (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inadequate lead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~Template:Lead too short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)~~ change to: Template:Lead rewrite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Inadequate lead with ~~Template:Lead too short~~ to Template:Lead rewrite. (changed template to merge/redirect to. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Template wording is too similar to current template to merit needing a 2nd template. Funandtrvl (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The template "Lead too short" is for lead sections that are too short and need expansion. The template "Inadequate lead" is for lead sections that are not too short according to the lead section guidelines, but still do not summarize the main points of the article. Marokwitz (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Merge: Because the wording is very similar in the two templates, and there is no need for both templates. In fact, the {{expand lead}} template, which has a similar meaning to the "inadequate lead" template, is a redirect to the "lead too short" template. In the below comparisons, the only difference between the two templates is highlighted below:

{{lead too short}}

{{inadequate lead}}

There must be a way to merge the wording of the two templates, and have "inadequate lead" redirect to "lead too short". Any suggestions are welcome. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to redirect the "inadequate lead" template to {{lead rewrite}}, see below:

--Funandtrvl (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely don't need all 3 of these templates. {{Lead too short}} is slightly different from the others in that it specifically asks for the lead to be made longer. {{Inadequate lead}} and {{lead rewrite}} essentially do the same thing, ask for the lead to be rewritten/modified. Since {{lead rewrite}} is used much more, redirect {{Inadequate lead}} to that and leave {{Lead too short}} as it is. Mhiji (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I think after further consideration, that redirecting the "inadequate lead" template to the "lead rewrite" one is the best thing to do. Because the "lead rewrite" template suggests that further discussion of the problem can be made on the relevant talk page, then it would cover any variations in the text of the template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise Proposal: I originally objected to the merge, but I am willing to agree, on condition that as part of the merge, the words "in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" are kept in the resulting merged template. I feel that it is important to be more clear and specify what is expected. Alternatively, I would also be fine with redirecting "lead too short" to "inadequate lead" which covers the case when the lead is not too short but doesn't properly summarize the article. Marokwitz (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Out of the 6 "lead" cleanup templates, the "lead too short" one has the most transclusions, at 4,200+. So, I don't think we should redirect it, as it is the most used. "Lead missing" is 2nd (1,600+), "lead rewrite" is 3rd (675), "lead too long" is 4th (210), "POV-lead" is 5th (44), and "inadequate lead" is last (13). I think we should redirect "{{inadequate lead}}" to "{{lead rewrite}}". Here is a proposal for updating the text in "lead rewrite":
- current version {{lead rewrite}}

- proposed version of "lead rewrite", incorporating the wording in "inadequate lead"

Waiting for your responses, --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see any need to change the wording. {{Lead rewrite}} already contains links to WP:SS, WP:LEAD#Introductory_text and WP:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview for anyone who needs more information about what the lead should contain. The "that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" line is lifted straight from WP:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview - it seems odd just to single out just that one line. Cleanup templates should be concise, just identifying what is wrong and then providing links to the relevant policy/guideline for reference. So I'd say redirecting is perfectly adequate. Mhiji (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing to a policy is insufficient. The words "a concise version of the article" are the essence of the policy and should be included. I wholly support the above proposed version of "lead rewrite" which incorporates these words. Perfect! Marokwitz (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Lead too short}}. Pretty much serves the same purpose: An inadequate lead is too short and a too short lead is inadequate. -- œ ^™ 09:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An inadequate lead is not always too short, a lead may be long but still not summarize the main points of the article. Marokwitz (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would help to see the current six cleanup-intro templates? If we redirect "inadequate lead" to "lead rewrite", then we're left with lead- missing, rewrite, too long, too short and POV. The transclusion counts are listed above, under "Suggestion". I still think redirecting & adding the proposed re-wording to "lead rewrite" would be a good solution.

Tag

Text that will be shown (and usage notes)

{{lead missing}}
category links talk edit

{{lead rewrite}}
category links talk edit

{{lead too long}}
category links talk edit

{{lead too short}}
category links talk edit

{{inadequate lead}}
category links talk edit

{{POV-lead}}
category links talk edit

--Funandtrvl (talk) 01:08, 31 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) 00:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be opposed to shunting all this excess verbiage into {{tooshort}}; the cleanup template need only point out the problem concisely and link to a project page with a fuller explanation. I'd be perfectly happy with simply redirecting {{Inadequate lead}} and leaving {{tooshort}} as it is; however, as a compromise, if wording can be found which keeps {{tooshort}} to two lines I'd be okay with that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements. The recommendations there are for 1. citing the need/request; 2. having a link to the talk pg (this makes sense) and 3. being polite. As long as the wording contains those things, I'd be happy with redirecting it to lead rewrite, not to lead too short, because inadequate lead can mean more than that (as explained in detail above). --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2011 (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) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting note: It appears there is no consensus for merging everything with {{lead too short}}, and hence, that was taken of the table mid-discussion. It would be great if there could be some discussion regarding the proposal to redirect "inadequate lead" to "lead rewrite" or to "lead too short", and/or adding language to "lead rewrite" to reflect this particular case that the lead is inadequate for some reason other than being too short. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Combine almost nobody remembers all the templates. It is sufficient to have a single template calling attention to problems with the lead: t there is no reason to assume that the subsequent editors will be unable to tell the difference between "too long" and "too short" without guidance. I'd suggest as a general wording: the lead needs improvement and then the option to add something saying why, whatever one might care to say if one wishes. What matters is to call attention to the need and opportunity for further editing. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which templates are you proposing we merge? All of them? I don't think a template saying "the lead needs improvement" would be appropriate if there's not a lead at all... Mhiji 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there are 6 templates, although I would advise to keep the POV template as is, since it works in conjunction with the POV template. Of the 5 remaining, "lead too short" is the most used, with "lead missing" 2nd, and "lead rewrite" 3rd. If you want to combine those 5 templates into one, how would that template be written, in order to give the choices? Any suggestions? --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Combine per DGG. Gigs (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only Template:Inadequate lead and Template:Lead rewrite. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh because {{Expand}} was supposed to be deleted for being too generic, now these are too particular. Merging and demerging clean-up templates is slightly fruitless. I have no massive objection to merging "inadequate" to "rewrite" although they are not the same thing. Inadequate implies missing content, rewrite is about presentation. It should, of course, be "lead inadequate" to fit with the other lead templates. Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

In this case I'd just replace the few instances of Template:Inadequate lead by Template:Lead rewrite and simply delete Template:Inadequate lead afterwards. Even though Rich is correct about the difference between them, I think that is too subtle a difference to justify having two templates. In addition, he is correct that it should be Template:Lead inadequate, but that is relevant only if Template:Inadequate lead is kept as a redirect. I'd be willing to do the replacing. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge—I for one wouldn't mind if some of the various article warning templates had their functionality combined for the simple reason that it is taking entirely too long for an editor to track down the right template to post. A combined template should be relatively easy to build by adding suitable flags. But I'm not in favor of losing the functionality of the individual lead templates by simply deleting them.—RJH (talk) 00:07, 20 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.