Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Articles (today · all · closing) Templates (today · all · closing) Files (today · all · closing) Categories (today · all · closing) Redirects (today · all · closing) Miscellany (today · all · closing) Stub types (all) Undeletion Deletion review Speedy deletion (candidates) Proposed deletion (books, BLPs) Deletion log Policy · Process · Guide Administrator guidelines

On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

• Stub templates

  Stub templates and categories should be listed at Stub types for deletion.

• Userboxes

  Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.

• Speedy deletion candidates

  If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.

• Policy or guideline templates

  Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the Csd templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.

• Template redirects

  List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a template

1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

I	Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page: For deletion: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=sidebar}} For deletion of an inline template: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=inline}} For merging: {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}} For merging an inline template: {{Tfm-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}} Leave the text PAGENAME as is – do not change it to the actual name of the page. If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators. For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Do not mark the edit as minor. Use an edit summary like Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]] or Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]] Multiple nominations: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|discussion title}} or {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template|discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually. Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)
II	List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log. Add this text at the top, just below the -->: For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}} For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}} Use an edit summary such as Adding [[Template:template name]]. Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following: {{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}} You can add up to 20 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1. Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale: {{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
III	Notify users. It is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then add For deletion: {{subst:Tfdnotice|template name}} ~~~~ For merging: {{subst:Tfmnotice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~ to the talk pages of these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page), so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should write a personal message in these cases.)

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

Current discussions

February 11

Template:Take-Back 60 Entertainment

Template:Take-Back 60 Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This is a template for a non-existent video game company. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Horrorfilmlist2

Template:Horrorfilmlist2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

unused fork of template:horrorfilmlist2. Frietjes (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

February 10

Template:AFD-note

Template:AFD-note (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unused template. Undefined purpose. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:SnaKeBit3

Template:SnaKeBit3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

See this discussion for reasons why this template should be deleted. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

February 9

Template:Next

Template:Next (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Previous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

these were being used to create large navigation buttons at the top of a few articles (e.g., see [1]) before I removed them. this sort of thing is very non-standard and redundant to less obtrusive forms, like succession boxes and sidebars. Frietjes (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment seems redundant to succession templates. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, it's redundant. Jorgath (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Battles of the Paraguayan War

Template:Battles of the Paraguayan War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This template is redundant to the more complete Template:Campaignbox Paraguayan War, and it's actually the first time I've seen a full-width navigation template being used for battles of a particular war. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect with a switch to activate a footer template. The Campaignbox is a sidebar template, so editors can choose between the two, depending on how they write their articles. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sierra Leone subdivision templates

Template:Bo District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Kailahun District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Kenema District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Kono District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Moyamba District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Port Loko District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Tonkolili District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Western Area Rural District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Western Area Urban District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Set of navbox templates that don't have any navigation links in them. WOSlinker (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Strike Back

Template:Strike Back (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The template only has two notable links to the subject (the first series and Project Dawn) which I believe is hardly worth the effort for a template. The creator of the template added links to characters and episodes, but they only redirect to the cast and episodes section of the two articles. I believe this template is non-notable. -- Matthew RD 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:2011–12 Charlotte Bobcats season game log

Template:2011–12 Charlotte Bobcats season game log (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Single use template and fancruft. Wikipedia is not a newssite. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Subst and delete on the one page it is transcluded on. Not a useful template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Inadequate lead

Template:Inadequate lead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Contested merge to {{lead too short}}. The reason we have length guidelines for lead sections is wholly because that is a good heuristic to ensure that the lead adequately covers the article's key points, and to dissuade people from the common problem of trying to make the lead as short as humanly possible. The author appears not to have read the discussion at template talk:lead too short regarding wording; the only reason that {{lead too short}} does not contain all the explanatory material in this template is because it makes the template wrap to three (or more) lines on normal desktop browsers, which is annoying long for a cleanup template. Recommend redirecting, and then the author can try to persuade people to expand the wording of {{lead too short}} rather than just forking it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. There are cases where the lead section does not provide an accessible overview of the article, yet is NOT too short. This is why this template was created several years ago. It is useful and distinct from {{lead too short}}. It is used in hundreds of articles where the lead is inadequate, but not too short, by authors which appear to care about the distinction, and should not be deleted without serious consideration. Marokwitz (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, see the discussion at template talk:lead too short (which you appear never to have edited, before or after forking the template and deploying it). There is far too much overlap here to warrant two separate cleanup templates. The key point of the lead is not length, but coverage. A lead section which is several paragraphs long but still does not adequately summarise the topic probably needs rewritten. There was a reasonable consensus it should be merged somewhere at the previous TfD. It has only 5% of the transclusions of the other template, and I warrant that the majority of them would be better tagged with either {{lead too short}} or {{lead rewrite}} anyway. As for "serious consideration", it's difficult to see what that could mean other than a TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

    The Lead rewrite template is very vague, and does not explain what is wrong with the lead. We don't want vague tags; What we need is clear tags that suggest what should be done to repair the problem. the situation of a lead which is long enough, but does not address the key points in the article according to the due weight principal, is a common one, and I see no harm in keeping a cleanup template for this situation. Marokwitz (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

    • This has been repeatedly discussed at the original template's talk page. The template is deliberately brief to avoid being too long. There is no semantic difference between the two templates, as you'd have been informed had you deigned to ask before forking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Even if it were used in only 1%, that still doesn't negate the main point for keeping them as separate template, which is that "inadequate" and short" are two completely different things. In addition, I urge User:Thumperward to refrain in the future from being overly bold and redirecting maintenance templates without prior discussion. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • They're not "completely different things". As noted on multiple occasions now, "inadequate" is what we care about, and "too short" is simply the heuristic which gets us there. Marokwitz apparently believed, erroneously, that {{lead too short}} only covers the latter and not the former, whereas it not only covers both but primarily addresses the former. The template should not have been forked in the first place, and it's well past time that fork was ended. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. {{inadequate lead}} indicates that the lead does not summarize the contents of the article. It can be too short, too long, or a good length, but it fails to summarize the text of the article, and is thus inadequate. I'm sorry, but {{lead too short}} means something completely different, and is not an acceptable substitute. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep "Inadequate" and "short" are different concepts. A412 (Talk * C) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect {{lead too short}} into {{inadequate lead}} - For the following reasons:

1. The wordings are almost exactly the same. If the templates are for different things and can't be used interchangeably, why aren't they more different?
2. Inadequate lead is a more informative, descriptive, and objective name for the template.
3. Inadequate lead can be used for a too-short lead.
4. {{inadequate lead}}'s message can be pared down if there's too much information in it.

I don't think {{inadequate lead}} should be merged into {{lead too short}} (since not all inadequate leads are too short), but instead, it should be the other way around and {{Lead too short}} should redirect to {{Inadequate lead}}. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the eventual title, so long as there is a merge. However, it's instructive to note that at the time of the fork the original template used an expanded wording which was later pared down after discussion. Merging the other way basically rewards an editor for forking without discussion and repeated disrupting efforts at consolidation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't really care that much about which message is used (though I personally like the oldid you linked to and the current {{inadequate lead}} better than the current {{lead too short}}), but I still think if things get merged, inadequate lead would be the best destination. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

February 8

Template:Counties of Ireland by category

Template:Counties of Ireland by category (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unused template. Information already catered for in Template:Counties of Ireland Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Premature nomination The template had already been nominated for discussion by me, the creator, at Wikiproject:Ireland talk. That is the proper forum for such a debate. Nominator should withdraw nomination until that forum achieves a concensus between the two competing templates. For this to go forward would only encourage forum shopping. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  It would be more interesting if author first seeks consensus before launching a template. But as compromize: userfication is also possible. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment If you build it, they will comment. How can you build consensus for a non existant object? Build it, criticise it, delete it. Isn't that the usual order of things? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy. Also, explain concept of userspace to creator of template.Snappy (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rationale Isn't it usual on Wiki to supply rationale for a decision? Concept of ratio decidendi needs to be explained to objector. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment When something serves no purpose, it is deemed useless rubbish and should be thrown out. Snappy (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Snappy, there is no need to be so hasty in nominating a template for deletion. Creating templates in userspace is not obvious to most users, and an embryonic template does no harm. If it is not developed within a reasonable period of time, then it can be TFD'd. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that I didn't TfD it, and you're right about some things not obvious though you'd think they would be. Snappy (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:NRL Rugby league squad

Template:NRL Rugby league squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Contra Costa County Public Transit

Template:Contra Costa County Public Transit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 7

Template:Colevel/check upto10 things

Template:Colevel/check upto10 things (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Colevel/count upto10 things (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

old and unused (appear on User:RussBot/Orphaned templates/004, which is very old). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Jorgath (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Current events/Latin America/DateHeader

Template:Current events/Latin America/DateHeader (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

unused after replacement with Portal:Current events/Latin America/DateHeader. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Jorgath (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Portal:Current events/Pakistan/2008 in Pakistan

Template:Portal:Current events/Pakistan/2008 in Pakistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Portal:Current events/Pakistan/2009 in Pakistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

orphaned and replaced by template:2008 in Pakistan, template:2009 in Pakistan. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Jorgath (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:LostAlone

Template:LostAlone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template seems premature/unnecessary; navigates only two articles, one being the band's parent page.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per below. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough articles to warrent Navbox.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and above. Jorgath (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Of Machines

Template:Of Machines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Navigates only two articles (one being the band's parent page); not enough links to be useful.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NENAN. Seriously, why do you morons keep doing this? Don't you know navboxes are supposed to navigate swaths of articles? They're not just there to look pretty or "complete". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Calm down Ten. The creator User:Krazycev13 has made useful contributions and has put himself in Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. Go trout him if you think he needs it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough articles to warrent Navbox. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Jorgath (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:AfD-postpone

Template:AfD-postpone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unused template for a proposed guideline that never got off the ground. The guideline hasn't been touched since 2010, so I see no forthcoming use of this template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Jorgath (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox former Champ Car driver

Template:Infobox former Champ Car driver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Only 12 transclusions. It doesn't support birth/death fields. Delete and replace by {{Infobox racing driver}}. Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and modify to include the necessary fields (along with {{Infobox Champ Car driver}}). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep An article would use both like Nigel Mansell uses Template:Infobox F1 driver and Template:Infobox racing driver. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and modify as per The Bushranger's suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Academy Awards

Template:Infobox Academy Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

this template should merged with {{Template:Infobox film awards}} which will serve as an overall film award template for all film award articles. A TfD discussion of various similar clone-templates resulted in Merge, and brought forth the consensus, that the new {{Template:Infobox film awards}} template should be used as a base template for all other film awards. Amsaim (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. As the original creator of {{Infobox Academy Awards}}, here's my two cents: For attribution purposes, any merge should go the other way into {{Infobox Academy Awards}}. As mentioned in that TfD discussion, Template:Infobox Academy Awards is the original film infobox template – all of the other templates are forks or mirrors. I'd rather see {{Infobox film awards}} be deleted as a fork, then have {{Infobox Academy Awards}} moved to that title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Zzyzx11. The original creator of the template must be preserved per WP:COPYWITHIN. {{Template:Infobox film awards}} should be deleted as a fork. {{Template:Academy Awards}} should then be moved to a new title e.g. Infobox film awards, which will then serve as a general award template for all other film award articles. Amsaim (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge, and preserve history as suggested by Zzyzx11. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge Per above. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and rename as above. Jorgath (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ship infobox request

Template:Ship infobox request (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Merge to {{WikiProject Ships}}. Currently, using the needs_infobox=yes field on that template makes this template appear — but most other WikiProject templates simply put a "This article needs an infobox" field in the template, instead of spinning off a whole other template on top of that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support merger. Also note that the template is not currently tagged for deletion. (I'd tag it myself but I'd be scared of messing it up...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I would prefer a consolidated approach. —Diiscool (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There was a reason this template was retained after setting the project banner for the box parameter. See User talk:Brad101/ShipSand to see what the dilemma was. It was thought that since the banner shell was to collapse project banners it wouldn't have been right to ram the box into the shell. I'd prefer that that option remains available. Brad (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Per my above statement. Brad (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the ship infobox is part of WP:SHIPS, "ramming" it to the collapsible multiple-project template kind of gives an idea that the article is missing other infoboxes as well. Since it's almost universally the only infobox in the article, I would prefer to have the request (or more precisely an option to use it) as a separate template. Tupsumato (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Symbolism

Template:Symbolism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Yet another overly specific maintenance tag. This does not seem to be a widespread enough problem to warrant a whole template. {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} should do the job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I created this template at the request of User:OrangeMike (who I will ask to comment here). I have no comment on the matter except that I don't really understand the criticism of the template being too specific. Surely the more specific a cleanup template is, the better chance the issue has of being resolved? {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} would seem rather vague in comparison. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - surely specificity rather than vagueness is a good thing? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep this and keep doing this. We should delete the general tags and only allow tags that point to a specific problem. We could perceive this as the tagging system evolving. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Dubious conversion

Template:Dubious conversion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unused, doesn't appear to have ever been used in any fashion since creation in 2009. Related to below — we have unit conversion templates, so I can't ever imagine a faulty unit conversion being a problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been used in the past, but the highlighted errors seem to have been fixed. It is, however, needed in lots of places. For example if you search for any article containing the measurement 304.8 m, in most cases it is a ridiculously overprecise conversion of 1000 ft, which implies that the original measurement was accurate to within two inches. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 22:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep For above reason. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Precision of unit conversions is a huge issue that needs addressing. I think the way to address the issue is through 1)education, 2)reviving the UnitBot project.

1) Educating all editors about the issue and encouraging them to use {{convert}} for unit conversion. (I just added a reference to {{convert}} at the subject templates doc page just in case the template is kept.) Also, editors can be referred to MOS:CONVERSIONS.

2) The UnitBot project is (was?) a good idea and should be revived. If anyone has the resources to help make that happen, please get in touch with the bot's owner to see if that can be made a reality.

So, I agree that the unit conversion precision is an issue, however, Template:Dubious conversion and Template:Bad unit conversions are probably not the best approach to address the issue. Therefore, I recommend

• Delete, along with the above recommended actions. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• If UnitBot were revived, then the template would be very useful, as it could be used to flag borderline cases. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alternative suggestion - move into talk space of UnitBot. These templates would become widely used if the UnitBot project were revived. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Move as per Hyperdeath's above suggestion. Jorgath (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Bad unit conversions

Template:Bad unit conversions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unused — it was on two articles, but one had a table even claiming it was inaccurate and a dubious source, and the other had no "units" to speak of. We have conversion templates out the yin yang, so I can't imagine unit conversion errors being a problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep if we delete {{cleanup}} we need will need this template. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• No we won't, because it's unused as it is, and {{convert}} assures that unit conversions are accurate. Under what circumstances could a unit conversion be inaccurate if we have {{convert}}? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Read significant digits; if you don't use the "sigfig" flag in {{convert}}, then it already falls afoul of bad unit conversion, and that flag is not mandatory. Even if this template is unused, that does not mean that cleanup for this case isn't necessary, only rare. If we don't have a specific template for every type of cleanup, why are we deleting the general cleanup template {{cleanup}}? Obviously, if we don't have a generic cleanup template, we cleanup templates for every type of cleanup. -- 70.24.247.54 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I still don't think this template will get any use. Also, "overly specific" ≠ "bad". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overprecise conversions aren't just undesirable, but a form of error. For example, if an original source contains a length of 1000 ft, and an editor converts it into 304.8 m, this implies that the length is somewhere between 304.75 m and 304.85 m. Unless the original 1000 ft measurement was accurate to within two inches, this is false. In other words, the editor has taken a source, and attributed unsubstantiated information to it. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 22:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep For above reasons. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that it's completely unused means nothing to you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're the one who wants to delete the general cleanup template because there are specific templates available. If you delete the specific templates, then we don't have the templates need to actually mark things for cleanup. You can't have it both ways, either we need a lot of cleanup templates, or we need a general cleanup template, or we can't mark articles needing cleanup because there is no template to use. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Surely articles will be have significant digits misrepresented.Curb Chain (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that unit conversion precision is an issue, however, for the reasons I outlined in the {{Dubious conversion}} discussion, I believe that Template:Dubious conversion and Template:Bad unit conversions are probably not the best approach to address the issue. Therefore, I recommend:

• Delete, along with the actions I suggested in {{Dubious conversion}} discussion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alternative suggestion - move into talk space of UnitBot, as above. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Move into UnitBot talk space, as per Hyperdeath's suggestion. - Jorgath (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:NOT

Template:NOT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Also too vague. "May contain material not inappropriate…" okay, what material? Where? Did you discuss this on the talk page? I have never seen this template lead to talkpage discussion of what is unencyclopedic. Morover, I get the feeling that this template was sometimes confused with {{notability}}, as this template used to be called {{unencyclopedic}}. The first few uses I looked for seemed to be confusing it in such a way, and it doesn't look like the naming helped. I feel that the wording's just too vague, either way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment it looks like it should be for any WP:NOT violation, from the name of the template. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment' Previous deletion discussions

1. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_7#Template:Unencyclopedic
2. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_22#Template:Unencyclopedic
3. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_16#Template:Unencyclopedic
4. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_21#Template:Unencyclopedic

The re-naming of this template helped greatly as this template was previously a focus of much contention and drama, prior to it's rename notability was one of those problems, so perhaps if Ten Pound Hammer got the feeling it was confused with {{notability}}, then that is likely because of an historic use of the tag. That this template does not lead to talkpage discussion is true, but it also true for almost all such templates with a talk option.

• Weak keep, serves a useful purpose if used correctly. Especially recommend that the {{NOT|section}} be kept as this is specific and therefore more helpful. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is, though, even after the rename to {{NOT}}, many of the transclusions seem to date from when it was called {{unencyclopedic}}, and as a result, they still seem to be incorrectly using it as a substitute for {{notability}}. So renaming this hasn't helped. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could go through the historic tagging. It's used on less then 500 articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I went to three pages that use this template at random and I couldn't see specificly what it refered to. Two of them had red-linked talk pages. It is like a co-worker says to you "There is something about you today I don't like. You better fix it." and then walks away leaving you worried. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment How predictable it is to have a template useful for not-so-experienced editors to use nominated by an experienced editor who finds templates which are useful for not-so-experienced editors to use.Curb Chain (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete There is no possible reason for this. It is too vague. If you see something you don't consider proper, you can remove it, or give it a more defining tag so people know what in the article you are referring to. Dream Focus 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Too vague and no use for it. If something was WP:NOT then it would be tagged under speedy deletion or taken to AFD. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Although I think I've used this in the past, the parts of WP:NOT that necessitate cleanup already have specific cleanup tags. ThemFromSpace 17:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think its worth noting that this template is transcluded onto quite a number of pages. Since this appears to be heading for deletion, perhaps we can organize some sort of template roundup/redirection where the current transclusions are replaced with their more specific counterparts before the actual deletion is carried out. ThemFromSpace 17:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started going through the transclusions. Its easy work but will take some time to go through them all. ThemFromSpace 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

February 6

Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Army/Generic

Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Army/Generic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

broken and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Unused unchanged since 2005 Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. See: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 2#NATO Army warrant officer templates for a similar previous discussion. Please see my talk page for discussion in regards to genericification of Ranks and insignia templates. This is a work in progress. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I looked at it. Um . . . . I don't get it. It's a work in progress since 2005? The template is used by Warrant officer, but the template isn't linked to anything and looks broken. Huh? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy If this is a work in progress, than it doesn't need to be in the template namespace. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Battle for Australia

Template:Campaignbox Battle for Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. A military campaign box template of unrelated battles based upon a WP:FRINGE theory rejected by Australian military historians. The main article is notable, and explains the controversy surrounding it, but the presence of this template on high profile pages which gives it WP:UNDUE weight contrary to WP:NPOV. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Serious Australian military historians agree that these series of battles weren't directly related, and even many of the (largely amateur) proponents of the 'Battle for Australia' concept agree. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I should also note that despite my comment above, this template was created in good faith and, as I noted here, was partly my fault as I created the dodgy article which appears to have inspired it. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The idea seems to be the result of pressure groups wanting to tie a series of unconnected battles together. Until it's endorsed by mainstream historians, which seems unlikely, we can't treat it as an accepted concept. EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: per policy cited in the nomination. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Rename and reuse as a navbox for battles etc taking place around Australia during the war. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: per nomination. Battles taking place around Australia during the Second World War already have {{Campaignbox South West Pacific}} and the actual Battle for Australia article. Jorgath (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Sc

Template:Sc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Smallcaps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Propose merging Template:Sc with Template:Smallcaps.
Template:Sc forces a bunch of text into uppercase, which is very poor accessibility, per WP:ACCESS and MOS:TEXT. The similar template Template:Smallcaps uses CSS to style the small-caps, which is both better accessibility and (importantly for people with visual impairments like myself) can be overridden in a user CSS. So I'm proposing deleting Template:Sc in favour of Template:Smallcaps. OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happens with this needs to be decided quickly, it's totally messed up Template:Respell and whatever other templates it's referenced in. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've <noinclude>d it; we shouldn't transclude even those little inline TFD notices in templates that are broadly used in the prose of articles. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done, SMc. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SMcCandlish. Stupid of me not to have checked the knock-on effects of {{tfm-inline}}. It's been a long day. —OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (see merge !vote later): I think the purposes are very different. From what I can determine, the sole reason {{sc}} exists is to format the Christian phrase "The Lord" as "The Lord" in small caps the way that the King James (or Protestant generally?) Bibles do, for esoteric reasons I will neither support not oppose at this point, and to ensure that when copy-pasted into some ASCII-only container, it comes out as "The LORD". It really has jack to do with {{smallcaps}}, which is a CSS container template only. That said, maybe there are features from the one that could be useful in the other, maybe the one's entire featureset and purpose can be compressed into a parameter in the other, or maybe what one is doing is a bad idea. I'm on the fence about that. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Merge with conditions: I have no strong feelings on {{smallcaps}} — I don't personally like it, but that's why I override it in my user CSS; I have no objection to its existence ;o) — but {{sc}} causes non-overrideable small-caps, which are substantially more difficult to read for people with visual impairments (I have a relatively strong astigmatism, for example), which is bad accessibility. I would be relatively happy if all instances of {{sc}} were migrated to instances of {{smallcaps}}, which would suit the æsthetic need in Bible quotes (for example), without forcing the capitalisation to copy/paste (which is the Bad™ bit). —OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a "Merge with conditions" !vote. If it is, I think I'll change mine to one, too, 'cause that seems like a compelling reason. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly my intention. —OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge with the condition that it stop changing the actual underlying case to upper, since this is an accessibility issue. By contrast, people don't have trouble using the encyclopedia if they copy "the Lord" into a text file and get "the Lord", which is still perfectly grammatical. PS: If this would break some external tool, just give that conversion case an special CSS class, like "convert-to-caps" or something, and a simple Perl or Python script or C++ or Java object can make the conversion on the external tool side. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Bleeding Oath

Template:Bleeding Oath (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

navigates nothing. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The only link is to the band's parent article; the template seems unnecessary.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NENAN Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:The Sheepdogs

Template:The Sheepdogs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

navigates nothing. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - currently has very little value, as the only two links are to the band's parent page and record label. Unless stand-alone articles for the albums/singles are forthcoming, the template does not seem necessary at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:The Nightmare Room

Template:The Nightmare Room (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This navbox solely links between the people who worked on the television series The Nightmare Room, but neither of these people is primarily known for their involvement with this series. Also, neither of these biography articles link to this navbox. Navboxes are supposed to link between subcategories of an overarching category, but this navbox does not do that. Neelix (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, not how we do navboxes around here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

February 5

Template:Falling in Reverse

Template:Falling in Reverse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Too soon. Only two directly-related links to the band and its debut album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• keep. I don't even know why this template was nominated, but Falling in Reverse are a well known band that gained noteriety due to Ronnie being the former lead singer of Escape the Fate. There are enough sources to prove the information is correct, and just because the band is recent doesn't mean the template should be deleted. As an editor who specializes in giving artists their own templates who don't already have one, I say keep. Templates are an easy way to organize the album and single articles and chronology, and in my opinion all artists should have them. TJD2 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not if they don't have articles. A navbox is not intended to serve as an artist's discography. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was intended for that, but it does make everything easier to navigate.

• Delete per WP:NENAN. Do you really think you need a box to navigate two articles? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. They'll soon have more articles. BrokenWall3 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NENAN and see also WP:FUTURE. It can be recreate AFTER there are more articles. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. But why delete it now? Instead we should improve it. BrokenWall3 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless there are some soon-to-be-created related articles (e.g., singles, Ronnie Radke) in the works that can meet our GNG/Music guidelines, it seems just a bit soon for this template.  Gongshow ^Talk 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Then I guess I will have to be the one to create them. Just give me time. BrokenWall3 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Template seems created in good faith, but is new and therefore does not link to very much. As BrokenWall has volunteered to create more articles for the subject, the template should be kept for a long enough period of time that those articles can be created and evaluated. I'm open to deletion if progress isn't made on that in a reasonable timeframe or if the articles aren't sufficiently notable. Jorgath (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rumours

Template:Rumours (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Redundant as all songs that do have links in this template can be navigated to using the {{Fleetwood Mac}} template. Anyone wanting more info on the entire track list would simply go to Rumours. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, completely redundant to {{Fleetwood Mac}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Image-Poor-Quality

Template:Image-Poor-Quality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Cleanup image (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Propose merging Template:Image-Poor-Quality with Template:Cleanup image.
(Really, to replace {{Image-Poor-Quality}} with {{cleanup image}}.)

{{Image-Poor-Quality}}, apparently an image maintenance tag, just states that an image is of poor quality, offering no suggestions as to how it might be improved. In this state, it could almost be seen as a weak sort of disclaimer. The template {{cleanup image}}, while not specifically mentioning "poor quality", provides more useful information, and the reason given as the first parameter should make it clear why the image needs cleanup. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• A redirect should be uncontroversial here, and {{cleanup image}} already supports an optional reason with the same syntax. There's certainly no need for two overlapping templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Dubious about this. A poor quality image may need replacing, or may be labelled as "use as last resort" whereas Cleanup image may be used where some despeckling or alignment is required. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC).
  
• Weak keep. I was going to vote "Delete" because it was totally pointless, offering no suggestions as to how it might be improved. But since the template is used for really bad pictures in general, I thought it could be somewhat useful if some instructions were added. So that's what I did. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep. I'm going to agree with Farmbrough here, and suggest that {{Image-Poor-Quality}} suggests the complete replacement or non-use of an image, while {{cleanup image}} is fundamentally a "download this image, and photoshop it up" template. They have distinct functions and say similar, but not equivalent, things about a less-than-perfect image. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Use this tag when you need to just start over. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems that rewording the template would be an ideal solution here. Should the template suggest "If a higher-quality replacement is available, consider replacing uses of this image. If this image is no longer used anywhere, consider sending it to FFD." or something like that? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Honorverse character

Template:Infobox Honorverse character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Repository for purely in-universe content, exclusively used on articles which are themselves purely in-universe. Should any individual characters from this series eventually need an infobox they can transclude {{infobox character}} directly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not useful when we already have {{infobox character}}. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Completely redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Admiral T

Template:Admiral T (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template contains link to only one article besides the parent article; WP:NENAN.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:The Send

Template:The Send (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Links to very few articles; template does not seem necessary.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

February 4

Template:Artcell

Template:Artcell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

only links one album article and main artist article. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not enough linked articles to be useful; WP:NENAN.  Gongshow ^Talk 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NENAN. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Victory SC squad

Template:Victory SC squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Football club navigation template with only 3 working links, 1 of which has been proposed for deletion and the remaining would not qualify for articles. Cloudz679 14:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can anyone please tell me why this template is nominated for deletion? Very sorry from me if I've done anything wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZ47 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC) (Comment copied here from section below by Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Templates exist to make navigation easier. However, the club is not professional and therefore most players are unlikely to warrant articles. With this in mind, a navigation box is unnecessary. Cloudz679 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Week keep Template has six blue links. I think it's enough to warrant a template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Template not currently necessary, but I am open to suggestions for modifications to make it practical. Jorgath (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Upper tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland

Template:Upper tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unused template which duplicates the more comprehensive Template:Local government in the Republic of Ireland. The latter template is not big, so there is no need to split it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It is a mystery how this template even came to the notice of the proposer. I have only just created it. It's still a work in progress. For that reason I have not even deployed it into any county articles. Given that the proposer's activies in the past few days have been to oppose most of my edits, WP:Hounding offers a reasonable explanation for its surprise appearance. To the matter in hand now. The template is concerned with the "Upper Tier" of local government. While the template "Local government in the Republic of Ireland" has a section for this upper tier, it also has sections for "Lower Tier" (with 2 sub-categories), "Regional Authorities", "Acts" and (bizarrely) "See also". It's clear that the recent additions to this template have left us with a bloated template that is cumbersome to navigate. It does not set the authorities in their proper context. One could be left with the impression, for example, that "Regional Authorities" have powers of government equivalent to "Higher Tier" councils. This is not the case. The current template, on the other hand, prevents this situation arising as all the entities it contains are on the same legal footing with equivalent powers. All are areas of local government at the level of LAU 1 per the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics of the EU's official Eurostat body. They lie at a level immediately below that of central government itself. The same cannot be said of the "Lower Tier", "Regional Authorities", "Acts" or "See also" entities of the other template. If this maliciously motivated proposal is defeated, I propose to delete everything from that other template except the "Lower Tier" categories and to re-name the template to "Template:Lower tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  LL, WP:NPA . You are wrong about my motivation, and should in any case assume good faith. A superfluous template came to my attention, so I took it to TfD. If you have a problem with that, take it to WP:ANI.

  Now that you have explained the purpose of the new template, The existing {{Local government in the Republic of Ireland}} is clearly laid out, and is not overly large. It sets all the local govt entities in their proper context, which is as part of a wider system of local government. I'm sorry that you think the "see also" section is bizarre, because it links to a very few important topics such as the county manager, who is a crucial part of the local govt system in Ireland.

  You correctly note the lower tier councils are not EU-recognised statistical units .. but so what? Both templates are about local government in Ireland, not about EU statistics. Please try to understand the distinction.

  As to your suggestion that {{Local government in the Republic of Ireland}} misleads readers, I'm afraid that you are seriously mistaken: it clearly distinguishes between the higher and lower tier of local govt. Since the regional authorities are listed in a separate section, I have no idea why anyone would get the idea that Regional Authorities" have powers of government equivalent to county and city councils. On the other hand, this new template groups the councils in lists grouped by Regional Authority, which implies that the Regional Authorities in Ireland have some sort of higher role in local govt, which is not the case. They are low-budget co-ordinating bodies which also monitor EU funding.

  This new template appears to be a continuation of LL's fixation on the distinction between the two tiers of local govt in Ireland, and the irrelevant fact that the areas with town councils are not separate EU statistical units. At one point LL amended all the articles on the City and Councils to describe them in their ledes as "Tier 1" authorities, which was a neologism of LL's own invention .. and last year LL even proposed removing town councillors from the councillors categories. I wonder whether this latest template is connected with the recent deletion of the LL-created Category:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland, which was another attempt to give undue prominence to the EU's statistical mechanisms? Both appear to have the same intent, of misleading readers into thinking that the EU has some decisive role in the structure of Irish local govt, whereas the reverse is true: the EU simply uses existing administrative units for statistical purposes.

  If we have separate templates for the two tiers of local govt, the effect is simply to reduce the local govt context available on each article to which these templates are applied. That does not help the reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions, of good faith or otherwise, are only valid for as long as no evidence is produced to disprove them. The most casual examination of the proposer's close scrutiny (including the nomination of several cats & templates for deletion) of my edits in the past few days would be sufficient to convince any reasonable observer that a high degree of hounding is evident. I am, therefore, entitled to assume an absence of good faith in the proposal. The sheer volume of material above is testimony to the proposer's paranoia and represents nothing more than a shrill exercise in covering up base motivations. Ignore the fluff. Stick to the facts. Two schemas are needed for the job; 1 for the upper tier, 1 for the lower tier. There is no intersection in the sets. No town (that contains a town council) article would need a template for the county area. Similarly, no county area (that contains a county council) would need a template for sundry town council areas in the county. They are mutually exclusive. Say "No" to bloated templates; vote for economy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong: they are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Laurel, you seem to think that the town councils and county councils are as distinct and separate as diamonds and cheese, and consistently take the view that town councils are so completely distinct from county councils that they shouldn't be discussed in the same place. You even think that town councillors are not local councillors, even though they are elected members of a local council. The two types of council are inter-related bodies, because where a town council exists it exercises some of the functions which would otherwise be the task of by the county council, and the county council still performs other tasks.

As to paranoia, who is that alleged hounding? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - yet another superfluous Irish local government template. Snappy (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete unused copy of Template:Local administrative units of Ireland. Both do not add anything of encyclopedic value to Template:Local government in the Republic of Ireland. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Polite Suggestion the above comment should be posted in its own area of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 22 Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't be in such a hurry... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the deletion of this template. It looks to me that there is use for this template on the Regional government articles at the very least. DubhEire (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  If its purpose was for use on the regional authorities, why is it called {{Upper tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland}}? The RAs are not upper tier local govt areas.

  The existing {{Local government in the Republic of Ireland}} includes the RAs, so I will attach that template to those articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  Frankly the way this template is laid out, gives a better way of navigating regional government articles and the councils therein. The local government template is too comprehensive to be primary for the regional articles and would not give the reader easy access to the councils under the regional governments. Ok the name may not suffice the use, but it is a use of the layout? Perhaps this is where LaurelLodged was coming from with this template and the other when applying them to council articles.

  The more I think about this, the more I think there should be a sub project to cover off the efforts and progression of these related articles / categories / templates. It is clear to me there is desire from those involved to edit articles relating to government matters. Therefore I suggest a more collaborative way of moving forward should be attempted. DubhEire (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  DubhEire, I think you may be right that something like this could be a good way of navigating the regional authorities. However, it's not just the name of the template that is a problem, because the creator of the template has an entirely different idea: LL wants this to be a template of city and councils, and wants to use it on those council articles to replace the existing comprehensive template. That's entirely opposite to your approach, and as above I see no sound reason to break up the coverage of councils in this way.
  However, if you or LL or anyone else wants to use this template as the basis for a new regional authorities template, then I'm sure that the closing admin would be happy to move the template to userspace or project space, so that those interested could develop it further. If you want to work with LL on this, I wish you luck: LL's talk page in Nov 2011, before he deleted its contents is full of instances of many different editors trying to engage with LL and being greeted with hostility and personal attacks. I hope that it turns out better for you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Old discussions

February 3

Template:New article

Template:New article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

totally unnecessary template, and a real bad idea to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete if anything this should be an article preload/substitution framework template... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see any useful purpose in this. We already have a template for a new and unreviewed article, which is a much better way of signalling a new article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Yep. ResMar 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Wouldn't placing a stub template on the page create the same effect? --Son (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see the use in this when we already have stub templates and Template:New unreviewed article. Can WP:CFORK apply to templates? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not to mention we already have Template:New page, which can be used as an inuse/underconstruction template for a brand new page. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot see what purpose this template serves. James500 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally useless template, much better alternatives per above. Jorgath (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:The Armed

Template:The Armed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

no active links other than the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; even if the album page is recreated this template has little value with so few linked articles.  Gongshow ^Talk 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; why was this template even created in the first place? - Jorgath (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Allsmall

Template:Allsmall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Malformed template (mostly used through its weirdly named Template:G redirect) that opens a <small> that never closes. The entire content of the template is <small style="line-height:1.15em;"> There is no corresponding close/end template as far as I can determine (no Template:!g, no Template:End allsmall, etc. – there's no documentation, so I just had to go looking around). The template is not used as a spanning template, like {{allsmall|some content here}}. It just opens markup and never closes it, letting its typographic effect run wild until the end of some other, surrounding element terminates it forcibly (we hope - there's no guarantee this will work properly across browsers and platforms). I've not seen anything like this since the earliest days of the Web. Terminating this broken thing will have no negative effect of any kind, other than making some <small> text normal size. In the few placea this will actually make any difference, it'll take whoever cares all of 10 seconds to put <small>...</small> or {{small}} around the content that was actually supposed to be constrained by this template-without-end. In any instance where someone actually cared about the "line-height:1.15em;", they can simply add that to the new markup in the instance(s) they need it. In case it's not clear: The principal deletion rationale is that it is worse than useless, and directly harmful by filling Wikipedia pages with invalid markup and unpredictable text formatting effects that depend on the sheer randomness of where they're placed, in order to ever stop. The template could conceivably be used without harm in the form {{g}}Blah blah blah</small> but I have yet to find a single instance of this, and bizarre mixed markup requirements like that are not helpful to editors, making the template useless even in that case. It does have a fair number of transclusions, simply because {{g}} was quicker than {{small}}, but my feeling on this is "So what?", since the negative effects of deletion will essentially be harmless and the positive ones obvious. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment whatever the case, the misleading redirect {{G}} should be deleted. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think any template that applies formatting that does not terminate by the end of the template is inherently malicious. Speedy Delete, maybe as a G6. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Works for me, though I think Vanisaac means inherently usable for malicious purposes (which is true), not inherently only usable for (i.e. intended for) malicious purposes, which in this cases seems very unlikely. It's just really bad code, and disused anyway, presumably because it's dysfunctional. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Agree that its creation was not malicious, but the only useable function it has now is malicious. Jorgath (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2

Template:UCS characters

Template:UCS characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The template tries to describe UCS (or Unicode) characters along a single line of grouping & subgrouping: Script-Symbol-Other. But the "character type", which has a descriptive not defined meaning btw, is used along multiple lines in Unicode. Script-Symbol is one, but then should have a "None of these" added for controls and formatting characters. Another grouping could be per visible/not visible, or General Category, or graphic/format/control, or Is Combining Y/N, or Is Compatibility Y/N, etcetera. These are all separate, independent groupings. For example, a Numerical character can be in a Script or not. Example 2: Combining characters are not confined to scripts, they can work with Symbols just as well. The (younger) {{Unicode navigation}} covers these multiple dimensions better.
Apart from this, the current template is incorrect and incomplete. Which in itself is not an argument for deletion, but when we would improve it the problems we encounter illustrate my point. DePiep (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm just wondering, DePiep, if you followed all the links, because the "Numerals" link covers both script=common and script-specific numerals. I think you have misconstrued the purpose of this template, and then judged it to be deficient based on a standard that is not appropriate. I don't think this was ever designed as a comprehensive listing of every character type, merely as a quick guide to the major broad topics - a job which it does quite exceptionally. Yes, diacritics technically can be used on symbols, but that is really a detail of Unicode architecture, rather than an immutable identity. As a point of fact, when used with symbols, they are almost always simply refered to by the general combining mark. Add in the fact that if you follow the link from the title, you get a fairly comprehensive article on most of the content you believe is missing, and I have to wonder if maybe you shouldn't just work on a new template that has the information you want. I personally believe that {{Unicode navigation}} is wholly inappropriate to the uses to which {{UCS characters}} is put in the articles in which it was transcluded. This template is a very good, general overview of the topic which it purports to cover, and is used appropriately and consistently in the articles in which it is transcluded. Perfect example of what a template can be. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to start I need to skip the snarky opening tone you use. Then I can get to the content. If there were issues with the linked articles, then I would be overthere not? Here I talk about the template.

First, this template lists some of the topics from its title promise, reduced to a dozen (CJK is mentioned, but not the Latin alphabet. Decomposition is mentioned, but not directionality). This selection is arbitrarily. If you claim these are the major broad topics, how do you know Decomposition is more important than say Control characters? Phonetic symbols (!) yes, mathematical symbols no? From {{Unicode navigation}}, dozens of topics should be in this template to give a serious representation. Conclusion 1: the list is too short, and so by arbitrarily selection.

Next, about the structure of the template. The list takes a simplified single grouping of topics: Scripts-Symbols-Other_topics. As I described above, this grouping is not along a single dimension, so it is unhelpful, we will keep encountering contradictions & illogics. Really, all Currency Symbols are in a Script too. The standard I apply is in the name of the template: UCS (Unicode) Character types -- well, I may expect it to adhere to that. I don't get what standard you refer to, except that it is "an overview of the topic it purports to cover"? That is circular, of course it covers what it covers. Can you expand by what standard it does something "excellent"? The template also does not comply with the first editors documented intention (is it along the lines of General Category?; End users need a link to Decomposition?). Conclusion 2: the template chooses a topic (& title) that cannot be covered this easily.

Three, the template that has the information missing is there already: {{Unicode navigation}}. Conclusion 3: Keeping up this one is a (partial) duplication of a navbox. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was no snark intended, I have absolutely no idea what you are complaining about with the number article, so the only logical conclusion is that you didn't read it. As for my other observations and perceptions, see below. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That the linked articles describe the topic of the template well, as you state, does not imply that the template itself is good. It is even stranger to suggest one must have read a page to understand the template. The snarky thing is that you conclude that I do not understand it because I have not read a certain page, like Numerals in Unicode, that describes the topic so well. Actually, I thank you for this compliment, via [3] and [4]. -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(Enough of this). On a constructive pace: I am interested in your noting that such a template is useful for non-technical, global, introductionary, end-user view. That is a different view than the big Unicode navbox shows, I agree. Is it possible to recreate or change this navbox with that viewpoint in mind? Say, the end-user Unicode character experience? The /sandbox is available. (I add, if it would be possible I'd still advocate to merge that into the big navbox, because having two navboxes is undesirable). Maybe the template could be along the line: VISIBLE (Scripts, Symbols, Grouping:scripts, math, phonetic; Functions: combining, pre/composing, direction;) INVISIBLE (formatting, control) OTHER (non-characters). -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still don't get it, but if we really want to start from scratch to replace this guy, what do you think about going with something that is a more "UCS basics" infobox-style template, with some fields for Unicode Gc, Script(s), Block(s), etc. ending with some basic Unicode/UCS topics? It should be usable at the top of an article about a Unicode/UCS topic, or in a Unicode section of a script or other general article. We could also blank the basics section by flag, so that you could put the infobox in multiple places in one article, but only have the full one show at the lead - I'm thinking of doing separate transclusions for each new Gc at Mapping of Unicode characters.

I could probably put this together in a couple of days, but I'd like to announce it at Writing Systems to get some more feedback before rolling it out. Does that sound OK? If so, let's close this guy up and then do a G6 deletion when the replacement is ready. Agree? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 03:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• How's this, for starters? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 06:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Turning it into a full infobox can be good. As long as it overlaps the Unicode navbox (under whichever template name), I think I want to discuss it here. Explained more in the sandbox talkpage.

What I wanted to say is: if there is merit in a simplified global overview (compared with the big navbox), as seen by a non-tech reader, I'd like to use that. So far, template looks like squaring the circle.

Continued proposals & improvements at Template:UCS characters/sandbox and its Talk.

Closing admin: I suggest that while there is progress in the sandbox, closing this should be delayed. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Request: Can someone summarize the gist of this for the layperson, and without all the invective? I'm pretty geeky but this is really geeky, and mixing geekiness with spite makes it unpalatable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I can respond later, but maybe I am not the one to clarify this. My answer would start with: What do you think when you see & compare these two templates: {{UCS characters}} and {{Unicode navigation}}? (no answer expected, just to illustrate the issue). -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with DePiep on this one. The box is a random collection of Unicode-related links, organized illogically, that is of litle navigational use.

• The template is titled "Character types", but few of the links are to articles about particular Unicode character types, and what is a "character type" anyway? Perhaps, most seriously from a wikipedia point of view, this template seems to reflect one editor's own ideas about "character types", and does not reflect the system of character classification defined in the Unicode Standard.
• Why does the title "Character types" link to Mapping of Unicode characters which is an article that has nothing to do with Unicode character types?
• What on earth have any of the four items under "Scripts" got to do with Script (Unicode)?
• "Numerals", "Compatibility characters" and "Control characters" are not "symbols" in Unicode terms.
• "Combining character" and "Precomposed character" are the only grouping that does make sense, but they are put under the meaningless heading "Other topics".

The links give such an idiosyncratic and confused view of Unicode that they are not worth the space the template takes. BabelStone (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

1)Probably the only criticism that I agree with. If I had made this template, I would have titled it something along the line of "Unicode architecture" or even "UCS basics", and linked to the main Unicode article. I would have then moved character types as the first bullet item along with the "scripts" link - probably giving a bit more descriptive title - and the "symbols" link. Numerals would have been a second-tier bullet under symbols, with Compatibility and Control characters under the "others" section. Again, this is the changes I would make if I were starting from scratch.

2)Actually, the Character types link covers basically every Gc (character General Category) in Unicode/UCS, except those covered by the other links.

3)Another one that is a bit less than ideal. Specifically, Phonetic characters is just the one thing that isn't really touched on in the "scripts" page, and it isn't covered by any of the other pages, so it got tacked in, but it's not really thematically anything more than a curiosity here. On the other hand, Unihan, Punctuation, Diacritics, and symbols are also not really covered in that article, and the additional articles provide good additional information. Basically, "Scripts" gives a brief overview of simple scripts, the links provided are the ones that aren't really covered, or are complex enough to merit a separate link.

4)I don't think anybody was trying to make a technical claim about Numerals, Compatibility, or Control characters being Unicode symbols, but Numerals are almost certainly more symbols than letters, if we had to draw a phylogeny of character types. As I said above, I probably would have put both Compatibility and Control characters in the "others" section.

I think the links provide a good overview of most of the important, non-technical aspects of Unicode/UCS. It is used as a kind of an infobox in the transcluding Unicode articles, or the Unicode section of broader articles, in additon to the navbox at the bottom of the page that was bafflingly suggested as a replacement. Bsaically, it is the beginners' complement to the technical navbox, and I think it has a good deal of value where it is used. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, the /sandbox is available. -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - strange selection of articles results in this being a navigationally useless template. Per BabelStone. --He to Hecuba (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

February 1

Template:Mdash

Template:Mdash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Per WP:DASH, there aren't to be spaced emdashes, which is what this does. Replace it with actual mdashes and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Template is protected and cannot be tagged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not for anything, but that's no reason not to tag it for discussion. Get an admin to tag it for you so other editors who have a keep/delete opinion will come here. I found this discussion by accident since I came here to discuss the Cleanup tag in the next section. Really should be tagged. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. Note the next TfD below. It is also a protected template, and it has been tagged.

• Question. Why can't we just remove the spaces and have it produce just an em dash? Wouldn't that be more useful than deleting? Jenks24 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Subst and Delete - The emdash is in the wikimarkup toolbox. Why do we need a template to display a character that is a single click away, even if you don't know ALT+0151 produces one in Windows (or can't type that for any number of reasons)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)
• Delete because it's in the toolbox. By the by, em dash is option-shift-dash on the Mac. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but fix per Jenks24. Make it an always subst. thus allowing folk to use it, and keeping wiki-code clean at the same time. Rich Farmbrough, 04:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
  
• Delete per User:Resolute 1exec1 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's how it's used
Keep	it's not really intended to be used in article text; it's intended for use in templates, tables, lists and other equivalent things, in order to include a separator between items such as in infoboxes. It's also to be consistent so that the article editor can use {{mdash}}, {{ndash}}, {{dot}} , {{bull}} or {{middot}} and not have to insert the  — ,  – ,  · ,  • or  · symbol, they can use any of these as a simple macro. The idea being that if you have a table with a list of items, you can insert a spaced long dash (or the other symbols) between items that will appear correct, in that the items always have just one separator between them, and when a list crawls to the next line, the dash hangs onto the prior item instead of rolling over to the next line. Notice on the end of this box, the mdash symbol "—" hangs on the end of the last item that will fit on the line indicating that additional items follow on the next line as part of this list, but the item only stays on the line if the item and the dash will fit. It's easier to use (or remember) than the equivalent code {{nobr| —&nbsp}} or just plain  —&nbsp. See the column on the right. In code it's Item1{{mdash}} Item2{{mdash}} Item3{{mdash}} Item4{{mdash}} Item5{{mdash}} etc. (with some smaller items squeezed in to show that the list doesn't have to be the same number of items per line) but in the box they all fold perfectly once it runs out of space on the line to fit the next item and the dash following.	Normally, in a real box these items would be links, but this is an example. Item1 — A — B — Item2 — Item3 — Item4 — Item5 — extra item — E — 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7 — item that won't attach to prior line unless it fits in the remaining space — Q — A slightly longer item — KK — An obviously really even longer item that the dash will hang at its end — Item6 — C — Item7 — Item8 — Item9 — Item10 — Item11 — Item12 — D — Item13 — Item14 — Item15 — Item16 — Item17 — Item18 The space on the end makes sure the dash doesn't touch the edge of the box, either
	— Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk)	07:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Useful insight. (I chased down one example in an article, and could be forgiving given that it was used directly after a footnote superscript.) I wonder, though if this might be achieved better by some css magic and hlist? Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC).

This seems like a convincing argument to delete the template as using em-dashes as separators in a list is improper grammar. You should use spaced en dashes for that. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes for lists in text. For lists in boxes, with no sentence structure, the separating ornament, if any, is decide by different means. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

• Keep as is without changes. Was going to say ditto to Rich's recommendation, but Paul's demonstration of the template being used as designed says otherwise. SO NOW... when keeping tje template as is, the arises a need to update the documentation to specify how it is to be used (i.e. not just to make a dash in an article). Corresponding changes should be made to the MOS also, but I'm sure that'll be a multi-year process to get consensus on. SENATOR2029 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete due to WP:DASH: "Do not use spaced em dashes." I would advocate keeping the template and making it unspaced, but it's just too easy to use the HTML entity.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  HTML is generally deprecated. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
  

• Comment: WP:DASH is written from ignorance by people who don't know how computers work. Professional typesetters never wrap the emdash, endash or dash/hyphen to the first column of a line, which is exactly what may happen if the latter two symbols are not offset by a non-breaking space before and space after; it's an artifact of the way most browsers render pages. If you ever see an emdash in the first column in printed matter, it's a proofreading oversight or product of a non-professional publisher. As for keeping or deleting the {{Mdash}} template, I don't care, because I don't use it: Putting this template or any other template in the text of the lead section of an article results in a baffling void when viewed with a tool tip preview, so don't do it.
  • offtopic: heh, Latex is doing that typesetting for me XD mabdul 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comemnt: I don't know, but can somebody direct my to the toolbox thing? I use the modern skin and I don't see any mdash related stuff (exept my userscripts which I had installed). mabdul 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely useless template. em dashes are easy to type (or click on in the toolbar if you forget how). Using em dashes to separate items in template lists is improper grammar. You should use spaced en dashes for this, never em dashes. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as shortcut to no line breaking behavior syntax together with similar {{dot}}, {{bull}}, etc. While I prefer WYCIWYG, syntax for these is more complex with html. At the same time, we ought to clarify not to use it where not needed. So—as an example—not in the middle of prose. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - as Paul Robinson explains above, this has a use, even if it is deprecated in most contexts. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Kaldari. Yahya 17:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Abdal-Aziz (talk • contribs)
• Supernova Keep. Still useful, though not in normal article text. I use it all the time on my User pages. Those who are trying to delete this template apparently are not aware of its other uses besides in article text. Also, when I edit an article and need a long dash, I'll grab it from the Wikimarkup toolbox. Any other time, I toss in a quick Mdash by use of this template, which is actually quicker for me. It would be a huge mistake to delete the {{mdash}} template! – PIE ( CLIMAX )  16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. While I don't now, I have in the past used Mdash in my sig. There may be a lot of editors who use it in their sigs.

Template:Cleanup

TfDs for this article:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 25#Template:Cleanup
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 10#Template:Cleanup
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 4#Template:Cleanup

Deletion reviews for this page:

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 21

Template:Cleanup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

As I said the last time I nominated this, this template is loaded with problems:

1. I have never seen this used correctly. It's always spammed in a drive-by tagging. There are also several cases I've seen where the cleanup was done, but the template stayed because someone was too lazy to remove it. For instance, could you tell me what kind of cleanup Platform shoe needed? I don't see anything pressing there.
2. The template has been amended so that a rationale can be added, and there is now an option to do so in Twinkle, but literally no one is using the rationale field. NO ONE. Nor do I ever see anyone elaborating on the talk page as to what needs cleaning up.
3. Some keepers have argued that it's useful for new editors — but I feel that an editor who can figure out how to find and apply the cleanup template can find something like {{sections}}, {{copyedit}}, {{wikify}}, etc. just as easily.
4. It's so open-ended and vague as to be useless, just like {{expand}} was. Literally 100% of the time that I've seen a cleanup tag, I have had to remove it because I had no idea what needed cleaning up, or no cleanup at all was needed. "This article may need cleanup" doesn't help me one iota. It's like saying "This article may need expansion". You're only saying that it may need something completely vague that you're not elaborating on.
5. The cleanup template's an artifact of simpler times, before there were as many potential problems in an article. It seems some people want to give it a grandfather clause just because it's been around for so long, but so was {{expand}}.
6. There are literally dozens of more specific tags. WP:TC say that this template "applies to general problems not addressed by other tags. Please consider using specific cleanup tags first, as specific tags help other editors to easily identify problems in an article." Under what possible circumstance could none of the specialized cleanup templates fit? There's a maintenance template for literally everything now.

The last TFD had several arguments that it was "useful", but as we all know, "useful" is an argument to avoid. It's clear that the template is past its prime, so I suggest that it be deprecated much like {{expand}} was — this will prevent further (mis)use but keep it around for the purpose of article histories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete of course. Encourages the most lazy of drive-by tagging. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Have there been any improvements to the template since the last nomination? Many wanted the reason parameter to be made compulsory. AIRcorn (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• It displays "(Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.)", but it's by no means enforced, as I've seen literally no one use the reason parameter. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete then. It has had enough chances to address issues raised previously. AIRcorn (talk)

• I'd rather a death by a thousand cuts here by enforcing the use of the reason tag (i.e. red error time). After a few months, a bot should remove existing transclusions which fail to include a reason. At that point we can officially deprecate the tag and work to more appropriately tag (ot even better, fix) the remaining transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• We got a bot to remove {{expand}}, and I still had to remove several hundred by hand. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This is template is too general in it's approach, and is essentially redundant to the other task-specific maintenance templates. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Completely agreed with the nominator. This is an aggrivatingly vague template that is borderline useless. If an article has a problem significant enough to warrant a mainspace template, we should be requiring that specific concerns be outlined. This generally only confuses the editor, or is used redundantly with other, better templates. Resolute 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The may need is a red herring. It is always possible that the tagger is wrong, or the problem is fixed. If the may was a substantive issue, it could simply be removed form the wording.
  • USEFUL is not an argument to keep articles, it is a great argument to keep apparatus.
  • The reason field is in use on hundreds of articles, contrary to the plaintiff's claim
  • Anyone can fix the articles, add a reason field, replace the tag with a more accurate one.
  • We should not repeat the heinous deletion of Expand, which threw out six years of work for no improvement in the encyclopaedia, and had rapidly to be replaced.

  Rich Farmbrough, 04:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
  

  Drive-by de-tagging by the nom. is pretty worrying. If he is unable to see problems it doesn't mean they don't exist. Rich Farmbrough, 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
  

• Regarding your points: 1.) WP:ATA applies to all deletion forums, does it not? 2.) Prove it. 3.) Anyone can fix any article, so do we really need any maintenance template? 4.) What did {{expand}} have to be "rapidly" replaced with? How was its deletion heinous? How does a template whose verbiage never changed consist of "six years of work"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

1 - it's an essay. A moments thought shows that that particular ATA does not apply. Take a moment. While you're at it notice, for example, that "It doesn't do any harm" is a critical argument at RfD.

2 509

3 No, the point is you claim this is building in breakage. It isn't.

4 a. Incomplete and Expand Section and others

4 b. it threw away an extensive work-flow which will take years to rebuild

4 c. i "verbiage" POV language, begging the argument.

4 c. ii It changed substantially from "It is requested that this article be expanded by somebody more knowledgeable about its subject. Please improve it in any way that you see fit, and remove this notice and the listing on the request page once the article is no longer a stub." to "Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page."

4 c. iii The work is not just the template itself, but the careful application of the template, the associated talk page notes, the building of the workflow and apparatus.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

I still think the "work" built up by "expand" is a figment. There are many alternatives to the now-defunct "expand" template that cover the same territory — after all, isn't pretty much any non-GA in need of expansion by definition? Same goes for "cleanup". The term is so broad as to be useless. 598 is barely a drop in the bucket in the cleanup queue, so use of the paramater is clearly not being enforced in any way. I fail to see how my removal is any more harmful than users who just slap on "cleanup" whenever they're too damn lazy to do anything else or they just like putting a shiny template at the top. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you needed to write "ALTEXPAND" shows that alternatives were needed: the task of identifying what expansion was needed in those 100,000 articles (or was it 20,000 - even that information seems lost) has been made immeasurably harder by the deletion of the template from the articles. Simply hiding the template would have allowed some sort of triage. But then that's in the past.

Your removal of "Cleanup" would not be harmful if that tag was just added by people who "just like putting a shiny template at the top" - rather assuming bad faith - but it isn't. Your example Platform shoe had so much wrong with it that "Cleanup" or something similarly generic was the only apposite tag. That's not to say it was a hopeless article, it is rather the point of a wiki that articles can be created that fail on style, grammar, spelling, chronology, sourcing and are still largely accurate, informative and useful, and can gradually be improved by others who may not have the niche knowledge, to read well and be properly sourced. Rich Farmbrough, 05:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Thank you for at least replacing it with a {{cleanup-section}} tag with a clear rationale. If we can just get that to happen on 4 million other articles, then we've got something going here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep make the rationale mandatory. And I fail to see how we can create cleanup templates for every single issue needing cleaning up. WP:BURO -- why are we creating such bureaucracy as to require creating cleanup messages for every single issue when some issues are rare by themselves, while rare issues collectively are not so rare. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• And what does making the rationale mandatory fix in regards to the eleventy zillion transclusions that DON'T have a rationale? Nothing but slap a big red warning on that no one ever takes care of. Again, I see absolutely no possible "cleanup" that would not fit under one of the more specific templates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing stopping you or any other future fixer, from removing all instances that don't include rationales. If you delete the template, it disappears, so there's no functional difference from removing all instances missing rationales.

As for not seeing any forseeable need for some other type of cleanup, that's not very forward thinking, since Wikipedia evolves, so new types of cleanup will always appear. And thinking that we've thought of every single type of cleanup, you'd have to show me the mathematically complete argument showing that every single type of cleanup is covered by the current system if you remove this template. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not every issue is of equal magnitude, and there is no reason to have a template for every possible issue. Current template doesn't list the minor issues and no one is the wiser what the original tagger meant. When new "types of cleanup" appear, nobody is stopping anybody from proposing specific cleanup templates for them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, I must concur with the nom here. Recently, a fellow user called Katharineamy came to my eyes, who always works on the dead-end articles. She looks up the category for new entries and then systematically adds appropriate links to the articles so that readers can easily navigate to other Wikipedia articles. For her, it's important that the article are tagged with {{dead-end}} and not with {{cleanup}}, because she's not gonna find it otherwise. There are many other Wikipedians like Katharineamy with the same problems. This too generic tag shouldn't be used at all, and the best way to enforce this is to delete the template. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Flags should indicate specific problems; this one isn't helpful in providing instruction in what needs to be done to "fix" an article. It simply says: FIX THIS ARTICLE! There are instead already a myriad of appropriate flags that will actually spur specific action. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• keep and remove from articles where it is used without rationale - I see no reason to delete it from articles where rationale is provided Bulwersator (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Use a specific template (if needed). Garion96 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There are not templates for everything. And quite rightly so. There is no template for out-of-order paragraphs, for anachronism, for excessive litotes. People really do need to add some reason, though, except where it's glaringly obvious. Sometimes there is a comment on the talk page, or in the edit summary. We should bear in mind that the reason field is relatively new. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC).
    
    • Isn't there a rearrangement template of some kind? Also, the newness of the reason field doesn't fix the fact that there are still a far larger number of transclusions not using it. Nor does it fix the fact that almost all of the applications are not corresponded to a helpful edit summary or talk page discussion — I've taken a pretty large sample and seen nothing but drive-by template bombing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Not that I know of. Hm, I took a very small sample and found some of each. Maybe I'll have time to investigate more at the weekend. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC).
        
        • {{Cleanup-reorganize}} is what you need for out-of-order paragraphs, by the way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks, that says "layout guidelines" confusingly. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
            
• Note this is the fourth attempt to delete this template, at regular 6 monthly intervals. I added something to emphasise the need for a reason during a previous TfD but it was sadly reverted. Might re-look at this tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC).
  

• Is it wrong to send something back to XFD if the previous XFD is closed as no consensus? You keep acting as if I have some sort of agenda. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I hope you do have an agenda. I just wish deleting widely used (and narrowly used) clean-up tags wasn't on it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
    

• Keep and remove (by bot?) all templates without any reason. mabdul 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete If you can identify the problem, you can fix the problem. Simple tagging with such a generic message does not serve a useful purpose for the improvement of the project. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• keep but make reason mandatory, remove from articles where used without rationale - I also see no reason to delete it from articles where rationale is provided Tom B (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Find no reason to send it outside.--Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 16:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete this template is always inappropriately used. We have more specialized reasons, yet this template is always added along with specialized reason templates. I have yet to see a proper use of this template. If there is a major pressing issue on the article, there is something called a talk page where the issue may be brought up. All non-featured articles could all be classified as needing cleanup. We don't need a generic tag to say it. It is about as useful as Template:Expand was. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - this template should be replaced by ones which explain the specific problems with the article. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. "There are problems with this article" - about as useless as expand template, belonging on all non-FA articles. Kill. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This is a tag for articles needing general cleanup. Among other uses it replaces the need for a dozen different more specific tags at the top of an article. It also covers situations that don't have specific cleanup tags; do we really want separate tags for punctuation, grammar, layout flow, paragraphing, needs improved clarity, etc? I've used the cleanup tag to indicate that the article needs major copyediting and for cases where there is something wrong with the article that I can't put my finger on to be more specific and for cases where I just think I need a second opinion on the article. The problem isn't the template it is the lazyness of people who see an article that has already been cleanedup but don't take the time to remove the tag instead complaining about the tag. I've sometimes left the cleanup tag after doing edits because I know that it can be better but don't know how to make it better. Deleting the template will not result in thousands of articles that have suddenly been cleanedup but rather in thousands of article needing cleanup that I can no longer find to work on. RJFJR (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Twinkle makes adding multiple, specific, actionable templates far too easy for this to have any real usage. It may have served a reasonable purpose for a while, but {{articleissues}} has superseded it. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete don't think the template has ever really helped. An article that really needs cleanup is fairly obvious and doesn't need a tag at the top, just an edit.Cloudbound (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I try to use the template correctly, and I've applied the rational, and the rational already existed in the Talk page, I just condensed it into the template. I'd be fine with having another template be used instead, one that is more specific and helpful, such as those proposed. I mean when I applied the template for the first time, I quickly Googled for what I was looking for, scanned over the instructions, and then applied it. I think those others are equally easy to use, but are very specific. Let's use them instead. Jessemv (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, but make the reason parameter mandatory - I always try looking for a more specific template, but there isn't always one that fits the issue. (On that note, if there were a template for every possible issue, I might support deletion.) Also, I don't believe that {{articleissues}} has superseded this, as Jclemens has said. I do support the reason parameter being mandatory, however. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Too vague, encourages drive-by template spamming, better/more specific templates available. If kept, the reason parameter should become compulsory. Miracle Pen (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Useless in current form. There are other more specific templates that do a better job than this. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Exactly for the reasons given by the nom. I have tried to make people use the reason parameter back then by making the documentation more explicit, to no avail. Nageh (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Alternatively, make the reason parameter mandatory to use. Nageh (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The purpose of clean up templates is to encourage editors to fix specific problems that another editor has identified. This general template does not serve that purpose in theory or in practice. SFB 20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I've seen this on so many articles and then couldn't see what need to be done. Better to just encorage people to put comments on the talk page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. This template is useless except for annoying drive-by templating. More specific templates should be used if there is actually an issue to be addressed. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete by redirect to Template:Wikify. When I have used the {Cleanup} tag, the main purpose was to request extensive reformatting, such as for several dates or tables which needed to be wikified or aligned, as very tedious formatting beyond a {Copyedit} tag which concerns grammar or phrasing. Set as #REDIRECT to Template:Wikify, and no one needs to change all the current transclusions. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The template is generic and basic, and that is definitely agreed upon by almost everyone here. But I also have to agree on the other people who said Keep, that we need this template for "basic" cleanup. It's a gentle tag, if you use a whole bunch of tags to account for the cleanup without the use of this tag, it makes Wikipedia look bad for something that requires only such generic cleanup. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Even though this is broad and general, I think this template does some good for suffering articles, such as Dota (genre), which seems to have issues across the board. However, I would like to emphasize that I can't live without this tag, as I could just as easily add the three applicable templates. Nonetheless, I hope to keep the option open, in order to convey a similar degree of scrutiny, without drowning lacking pages with templates. So, I'll live, regardless of what happens to this template. DarthBotto _talk•cont 23:22, 03 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; vague, generic and useless tag that, as said above, is almost always inappropriately used, and often reflects the the lack of an adequate rationale of the reviewer-editor. WP is plenty of "clearer" and more specific tags, and all the possible problems are covered, so we really don't need this. Cavarrone (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Too vague. People can find more specific templates like "expand section" or "wikify". Just be sure to replace all the templates with something new. Agent 78787 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep but remove it from articles if the reason is not stated, and tell users to find more specific templates whenever possible. Agent 78787 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I used it recently and included specific cleanup instructions (albeit clumsily), so I guess that makes me the first. This template is valuable because it is flexible—the reason parameter allows it to address article-specific issues that may not be covered by other templates. It saves us the trouble of creating a template for every conceivable cleanup issue. Braincricket (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  So the solution should be to make the reason parameter mandatory to use. Nageh (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• But again, that does not fix the zillions of {{cleanup}} templates placed before the rationale field was in use. We've got cleanup templates dating back to 2007 that no one has done anything with. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  I would assume removing them would be an excellent job for a bot. Alternatively, if we want to keep the current cleanup tags, deprecating the template is certainly an acceptable option to me, too. Nageh (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds like a teacher marking a bad paper. It would so make me cry if i'da written that section :( - Skullers (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to be harsh; I enjoyed working on the article. Maybe I should re-word it. Braincricket (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Braincricket's rationale. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and support mandatory reason parameter. The nom claims it is always used in driveby tagging. This is not the case. I have used it for articles with multiple issues where not all issues are immediately apparent. It is useful for intermediate editors who may recognize that an article needs some cleanup but may not be aware of all of the relevant policies. Dialectric (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• See my comment above. Supporting the mandatory "reason" parameter does not fix the umpteen zillion transclusions beforehand. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removing instances without reasons addresses your concern, and FIXES those transclusions. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And we can do this using bot Bulwersator (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose making the reason mandatory: it will not deter drive-by taggings but show undue emphasis to one person's overview

- You can still input random characters, "wp:example", or a single-word 'reason' which could be more cryptic than a generic template. It cannot be enforced after the fact without becoming another sign-your-posts or provide-a-summary.

- The parameter is confined to a single line unless you insert <br> tags, meaning it would be one-line message at most. What do you write for a label of summary criticism on top of the entire article? A malwritten sentence would only make it worse.

- Since the templates are not signed, it appears as though wikipedia itself is scrutinizing you. That might feel rather unfriendlylike.

- If you see a note like "needs restructuring" or "poorly written", each editor is faced with either removing the tag, changing the reason-phrase, or leaving it the way it was. When do you tell when it's clean enough to untag?

- Requiring a message does not require using the talk page to elaborate further; the more specific templates still identify what should be improved. -- Skullers (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point—How do you tell when clean enough is clean enough? Maybe we could change the wording on the template to advocate its removal based the editor's own judgement. Instead of "Please help improve this article if you can," maybe something like "If you think the article has been improved, be bold and remove this template." As for drive-by tagging, I notice that {{cleanup}} is in the no. 1 position in the Twinkle "Tag" menu. It wants to be spammed indiscriminately. Burying it below the more specific cleanup tags might cut down on that (unless you don't use Twinkle). Braincricket (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: the quality standards link points to the main MoS page which is an overwhelming amount of information. "Cleanup" is the removal of dirt. Notice the broom icon. Kind of seems like a negative message: "This article is a mess that needs cleaning up. This here style guide is how to meet our standards. The talk page may contain suggestions." - Skullers (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Per all the comments about how vague this chocolate fireguard of a template is. Lugnuts (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - The template is used by WikiProject cleanup. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and use specific problem templates. Or make flags (not reason) mandatory. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as this template makes some precise comments for cleaning up. It is useful when followed by the reason for putting the template. I have got a nice example; see the article list of chemistry mnemonics. The template has been placed there and is very much needed and accurate. Also what to be cleaned up is also discussed.
  

It cannot be said that the template should be deleted as no one removes the template after the cleaning up has been done. Instead of deleting, it is better to encourage the community to explain what should be done to clean up. Also the proposal should be described in talk pages. If someone does a clean up then it should also be introduced to the talk page asking whether the clean up has been complete (or enough).Vanischenu^TM 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Encouraging does not work, I have tried that long enough. Mandating (sensible) use of the reason parameter is a solution that I would accept. Nageh (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But I still see no one trying to enforce use of the rationale parameter. And even if we use a bot to wipe out all the ones that don't use it, that leaves us with what? Six articles maybe that are using the rationale parameter? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Because its use is not mandated as of now. At least, when it is you can point users to this requirement and revert their irresponsible usage of the template. Nageh (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep WP:ITSUSEFUL only applies to articles; templates should be useful. 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 17:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• So you're saying if you're too lazy to use several tags, just use a single one that helps absolutely not in the least? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Some editors are not experienced enough to express what they want to say. This is reason enough for the template to exist so that inexperienced editors can use it.Curb Chain (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Overly vague template when more specific clean-up tags exist and should be used in its stead. Salvidrim! 18:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - WP has way too many tags as is. mbeychok (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Deprecate and redirect to Template:Multiple issues. I agree with the idea of forcing a reason and removing instances without a reason given. I feel like Template:Multiple issues does what this one ought to do. --Quintucket (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a useful tool. The fact that lazy editors are misusing it is not reason enough to remove it from all editors' toolkit. The same rationale applied to articles would shrink Wikipedia to a fraction of its current size. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Change the template to be rendered invisible - that is, to not display a box on the article, just place the article in the Category:Articles needing cleanup as it does now. This would preserve the well-intentioned investment made by editors over past years to flag 35,000 articles that need more attention than the average article, while removing the wiki-defacement of the in-your-face message box. We editors need to remember that 99+% of the access to Wikipedia is to read the content, not to discover things to edit. (This seems better than simply throwing away the basic article flagging that has already been done which would result from deleting the template.) -R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Don't hate the player, hate the game. Cocoaguy ここがいい 19:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Can't see why it should be deleted. Only because people are misusing it? Then these people should be advised of the right usage of the tag. Most of the maintenance templates could be deleted with this reasoning, since all of them in some way are fast, simple options for users who are not feeling like editing the article at that exact moment, but may be more interested later. And if anyone thinks a page has been unfairly tagged with the template, just remove it. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• If people are misusing it this egregiously, then that suggests a fault at the template level. So many hundred thousand editors can't all be wrong, nor can they all be corrected if they are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. If the template is being used for the purpose of tagging articles that the editor know requires fixing but is not knowledgeable enough to be more specific, this template should be provided for them to use.Curb Chain (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Delete For the same reason as {{expand}}. Too broad, and could legitimately apply to every non-FA article. More specific tags should be used instead. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with User:Cocoaguy. Also, some articles are just plain in need of a good cleaning up in general; posting a bunch of specific templates to such articles is kind of a waste of time. I can think of better things to do than worrying about how this template is used. Bumm13 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - As with the {{db}} template, this allows for specification of what needs to be cleaned up, however the difference is that everyone uses the specification field in the db template but nobody uses it in the cleanup template. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes there is a backlog, but that does not justify removing its use entirely. It is helpful for knowing articles that need improvement, even as most editors are not making use of it. I would support bot notifications for users that drop the tag without a specific rationale. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Which, again, does nothing to fix the rampant abuse of the template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - As note, cleanup is rather arbitrarily used in some cases, and in others, the tag could have drawn attention to a horrific mess that definitely needed work, and wasn't. I also agree with the fact that WP has simply evolved past some of its tags - anybody can edit an article for any reason, and that's going to happen, tag or not. I just copyedited an article that wasn't on any lists, but it needed it, and probably looks at least ten times better now. It still needs work, but again, there was no "incitement by tag" needed. Multiple issues is a different tag altogether, and should not be a cleanup redirect. MI is a more urgent level of necessity, because there are documentable multiple failure points in the article in question. Lastly, the db tags (and other "reason required" tags (AFAIK)), don't work properly without reasons given.MSJapan (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. From what I found out, the template is used in articles that can be "dirty" in a way that it's not properly organized or containing unnecessary information. The Wikify template seems to provide a more general point of view in the purpose for the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards which mainly focus on the ARTICLE'S FORMAT LAYOUT, not about articles that require some improvements through citing sources or articles that has a poor baseline.--Bumblezellio (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• The above vote is a good example of misinterpretation of this template... This is absolutely a personal interpretation of this template, a proof of its vagueness and an excellent example of its bad use. Cavarrone (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. You do know this is the 4th time this article was nominated for deletion. The last one ended with "No Consensus". So I'm pretty sure this 4th discussion will end the same way as the last one.--Bumblezellio (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  A different outcome of such a discussion could be that we mandate and enforce use of the reason parameter, or, in other words, deprecate the template's use without providing a sensible reason, either inline or at the talk page. Possibly, more people could agree with that. Just saying. Nageh (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• This one seems more leaning towards "Delete" as it is. Most likely, if the consensus is indeed to delete, it will merely be deprecated like {{expand}} was to avoid destroying article histories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I note that the use of this template raises an interesting philosophical problem: If a tool is invented for one purpose but is used for another, is it being misused? From the point of view of the tool's inventors, the answer would be a resounding "yes". However, from the point of view of the people who actually use the tool, it is being used exactly how they think it ought to be used. Whose point of view should we acknowledge, then? That of the tool's inventors, who run around after the fact, attempting to enforce a form of use against what the tool's users want? Or that of the tool's users, who use it as they find it.

It was once said that, according to fairy tales, the rightful king is the son of the previous king but, according to history, the rightful king is merely the one who sits on the throne. I think the same principle of facing reality applies here. Regardless of the intent of {{cleanup}}, it is not being used as it was intended. Instead, as others have pointed out, it is being used in the laziest form of drive-by tagging. Consequently, I think it best to reduce the availability of any tool that doesn't require the user to conduct more research into an article's requirements. ClaretAsh 02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Sometimes you just don't have a better template that be as specific to what needs fixed. This is the template I use on badly written stubs that I don't know the topic that well to fill in. Make reason mandatory if you must. It's easier than deleting this template. It's also the template used by a number of tools. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 04:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In the absence of an appropriate tag, we should leave a comment on the talk page. That's what they're for. Plus, they have the added advantage of being able to elaborate in detail exactly what the problem is. I think there is even a "to do" template that can be added to talk pages. ClaretAsh 08:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The periodic renominations for this template to be deleted is ridiculous. This template is used because if inexperienced editors know that a specific article needs to be cleaned up, but does not know how to express that, this template is the perfect fit. The reason {{expand}} was deleted was because any article can be expanded with information and certain information may not be included presently whereas an article that needs to be cleaned up has problems that may be related to cleanup. In any case, because this template is useful for new editors, this is sufficient reason enough to to keep the template.Curb Chain (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. If an editor's to the point that they can figure out how to apply {{cleanup}}, then they can also figure out {{wikify}}, {{sections}}, {{copyedit}}, etc. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's obviously your opinion, and you are obviously more experienced than an inexperienced editor. How can you speak for them.Curb Chain (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• C'mon, common sense. Inexperienced editors should study policies and guidelines rather than casually put a generic tag in an article because they "feel" there's something that don't work. Cavarrone (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor do they have too. If they are helping by putting a tag on an article that requires cleanup, please do so; it helps me. Maybe it does not help a majority, but Wikipedia is not a democracy.Curb Chain (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; too generic, there are plenty of similar templates that can fill its space. RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 06:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and leave the maintenance templates alone already. -- œ^™ 08:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

keep you cant keep renominating toill you get the result you like. This is not an EU treaty referendum in Ireland .Lihaas (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And this should have been speedily closed. The nominator's 3rd TfD and including the deletion review, is a 4th nomination. He will keep on renominating this until it get's deleted as opined above from several editors. And there are no new arguments for this TfD.Curb Chain (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: 1. the template and its documentation should then be rewritten, 2. add some error messages to the code, so that improperly calls to the template require anyone to delete it or fix it, 3. good reason to let it stay, but the template should be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page to explain why it is inserted, otherwise anyone can delete the call at sight, 4. if it is so vague, then it must be usable indeed, 5. yeah, but the grand prophet Xyzzy used the template, and then we should use it too (or emo statements require emo answers), 6. then the cleanup template should integrate those more specific templates. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion - create a special page listing all tagged articles' reason parameter (or lack thereof), preferably in chronological order. Those that see the utility in this template can examine the 5 year backlog and identify specific issues or replace/untag as needed. You could also add stub/wikiproject templates along the way to delegate to those more interested in specific articles. A task force focused on this can do it relatively quickly. This would make it a LOT more useful and quicker to process. Skullers (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that the size of a template-related backlog impinges on a template's usefulness? That's an interesting leap. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a way to make it more manageable. If the reason parameter is used, there should be a place you can scan over them without going to every individual page. That way you can see all blank or unhelpful lines and identify specific concerns or untag as appropriate. Skullers (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, but remove 'Consider using more specific cleanup instructions. This is one of the most handiest templates of Wikipedia, according to me. – We are legion. We never forget. (Plarem) ^{(User talk)} 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• I support making the |reason parameter mandatory - I shall agree to this proposal because this tag does seem to vague without it. But it allows you to say anything you want to cleanup. This is especially useful when you want to post cleanup instructions when there is nothing that fits in WP:TC. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. There are more specific tags that can be equally applied. --Son (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. It is unnecessary in its current state, and should be replaced with specific tags of all sorts. Fishmech (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Like others I'm concerned that this is the fourth time the nominator has tried to get this template deleted in only 14 months. The reasons for nomination are pretty much the same at each AfD and yet, the community doesn't want seem to want to delete this template. However, that hasn't stopped the nominator, even when DRV rejected his opinion that the template should be deleted after the last, "no censensus" result. That said I have to give him points for his conviction but, there are plenty of articles that, unfortunately, require a general cleanup and this template if perfect for those situations. Sometimes it's impossible to add specific templates that adequately identify the problems in an article without overwhelming the article with templates. Both {{multiple issues}} (which others have suggested using) and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup say not to add too many templates. Looking at the nominator's reasons for deletion:

1. "There are also several cases I've seen where the cleanup was done, but the template stayed because someone was too lazy to remove it." - That's a problem with all templates, not just this one. It's a reason to remove the template from the article, but not to delete it. "could you tell me what kind of cleanup Platform shoe needed?" - The template was added on 4 February 2007.[5] It's fairly obvious from the article that it had issues with redlinks, referencing (lack of inline citations, citation needed tags, conversion of bare urls to references, conversion of inline text reference to an appropriate referencing format etc), wikilinks (removal of unnecessary links to multiple decades), dates (eg "February of 2006"), removal of OR and so on. These are just the obvious problems. In order to identify them by template, you'd need a whole host of templates on the article page and you'd still need to write so much on the talk page that you may as well have cleaned the article up yourself. This was clearly a case where application of the template was valid.
2. "there is now an option to do so in Twinkle, but literally no one is using the rationale field". - That's a pretty bold claim to make. According to Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field, there are 25,828 articles in this category, while the template is transcluded while there are 26,903. Those figures indicate that there are 1,000 articles that do include a reason. It's far less than ideal but the rational field has only been in this eight year old template for 7 months.
3. "I feel that an editor who can figure out how to find and apply the cleanup template can find something like {{sections}}, {{copyedit}}, {{wikify}}, etc. just as easily" - Sometimes the problems require too many templates, which is when {{Cleanup|reason=}} becomes a better option.
4. "It's so open-ended and vague as to be useless" - Well no, its use on Platform shoe was valid. Any editor who saw the template on that article in 2007, looked at the article and couldn't work out what was wrong could be regarded as useless, but the template wasn't. With the "|reason=" parameter, use of which I feel should be mandatory, it's very useful.
5. "The cleanup template's an artifact of simpler times, before there were as many potential problems in an article" - There really hasn't been an increase in the number of problems an article could have, that's a furphy. If the template is an artifact, it's an artifact of a time when editors didn't have to be spoon fed as much as they seem to today. If there are problems in an article, they aren't always easy to spot but they often are. Regardless, some editors have no idea what to fix without a template stuck on the top of a page that tells them exactly what's needed, which is why this template doesn't appeal to them.
6. "There are literally dozens of more specific tags." - There are, but the last thing we want is dozens of templates on a page when one will suffice.

I agree with others who have said that use of "|reason=" should be mandatory. There's really no reason why a reason can't be added, so why not make it mandatory. With 1,000 articles apparently including a reason, the parameter is clearly gaining acceptance and, it can't hurt to include even the briefest of reasons. If an editor can't think of a reason, then the tag probably isn't warranted. I note that, in response to Rich Farmbrough, the nominator has suggested use of {{Cleanup-reorganize}}. Perhaps what we really need, rather than deleting this template, is to expand it to cater for the other "Template:Cleanup-" templates listed at Category:Cleanup templates, replacing a lot of little templates with just one. However, in the first instance we should insist on making use of "|reason=" mandatory. I also support the suggestion that we do a bot run to delete all instances where the template is used without the parameter. That should address the nominator's concern about cases where the article has not been removed when it should have, as was the case with Platform shoe. If the template is really needed on an article from which it was removed, it can easily be restored, with a reason. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that it is often used inappropriately means that it should be fixed, not deleted. Deleting it would be throwing the baby with the water. I personally use it to describe a variety of cleanup problems, which I would have little way to describe without it (mostly policies and guidelines which don't have a specific tag). --Muhandes (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• And how do you propose fixing it? We already tried "fixing" it with a rationale paramater, but that's done jack shit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• 1,000 articles with a reason after 8 months is hardly "jack shit". --AussieLegend (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• I could think of several ways to fix it, but since they were all already mention in this same thread I don't have what to add. If a previois attempt was made, it was not violent enough, try again. --Muhandes (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep with modification. Most of the complaints above seem to involve not using the reason parameter. Wrapping code along the lines of {{#if:{{{2|{{{reason|}}}}}}|Show the box|Don't show the box}} around the template would make the parameter mandatory. Haus^Talk 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again. Making the reason parameter mandatory DOES NOT FIX the existing problem of a bazillion articles having drive-by tags dating back from forever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's why we do a bot run to remove instances where |reason= isn't used. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Informational note in addition to the articles which do have a reason I can confirm over 1000 have a talk-page section about clean-up. Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
  
• Keep, with reason mandatory. Osarius Talk 22:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:JUSTAVOTE, buddy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright then: Keep, with reason mandatory. Yes, the template is used far too much, but it can be useful in the right context and with the right reason. Perhaps if the reason were to be made mandatory but to a few specific values. Tools such as Twinkle could easily be updated to work with that, and the template itself could be altered to recognise only those the values. A bot could remove tags dated over, say, 6 months when the article has more than, say, 50 edits. If these changes aren't likely to be implemented or be benefitial to anything in the log run then Delete the template, there's clearly a problem with it in it's current form. Osarius Talk 23:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep, force Twinklers to use rationale: Whilst the nominator is quite right to point to abuses of this template, a random sample of articles tagged reveals that many still have significant defects. Whilst more specific templates are much more useful, a general template still serves as a good and proper warning to readers and metric to editors IMHO. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion: get a bot to remove all transclusions that doesn't come with a rationale or other comments. The template itself is not the problem. Deryck C. 01:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Which would strip it down to like, 5 transclusions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• By my count, as of right now it's 1,079 articles more than that. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or deprecate. This template is unhelpfully vague and redundant to the more specific cleanup templates. It invites lazy tagging, whereas requiring a more specific tag invites the editor who places the template to take a closer look at the article. Editors who come across a generic cleanup template may wish to improve the article but not recognize the issues identified by the original tagger. Cleanup templates have the potential to reinforce our policies and guidelines, but that effect is diluted by a catch-all template such as this. The mandatory rationale field solution is problematic in that it invites novel rationales unsupported by guideline/policy. The field already gives our templates an inconsistent voice and has too much potential for editorializing, ad hominem attacks and libel. Gobonobo ^{T C} 02:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

*Keep. This template should be used in article with multiple MOS issues. 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 02:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• But why there needs to be a "reason" parameter? Isn't that gonna display a message regarding the template's current status? 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nineteen-Eightyit(s) (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely by User:MuZemike as a sockpuppet of User:Guitarherochristopher. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The reason parameter would ostensibly be for people to clarify what needs cleaning up. But as pointed out, very few people are doing that even with the parameter in place. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1) People can choose not to use it 2) As pointed out by other editors, there are now more than a 1000 articles with this parameter. Seems more than effective to me.Curb Chain (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The simplicity and says-all of this template discourages tag bombing. If an article is clearly in horrid condition, then six different issues don't need to be pointed out. Even using {{multiple issues}} is unsightly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire. Unspecific and non-helpful. There are a multitude of very specific cleanup templates that should be used in place of this one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not specific, and there are better templates that can explain the article's needs. I've always seen it slapped onto an article with no helpful explanation given. --ddima (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep iff adding a reason is made mandatory and existing transclusions with no reason are removed I think a general cleanup template for which you can supply a reason is useful. Specific templates such as {{buzzwords}} are better than general ones like {{advert}}, but we have so many cleanup templates nobody is gonna know all of them. With a mandatory reason you can provide highly specific rationales without having to track down the right template. If people go around leaving nonsense reasons that is a problem with that users conduct, not with this template. I agree however that drive-by tagging of this template without providing a reason is useless, so I suggest we use a bot to revert new additions of this template without a reason, leaving a message on the users talkpage explaining the issue. Existing transclusions without a reason should be removed after a certain grace period (say, 2 months). Yoenit (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep'. Yeah, we have 200 more specific templates that can be used instead, but not every valuable contributor makes a point of keeping an encyclopedia of cleanup template names in their head. People who object to this unspecific template can always spend their time hunting them down and replacing them with something more specific. This doesn't mean that it is redundant. If the template is added without appararent reason, why, just remove it (sheesh). If it is added to a clearly broken or sub-standard article, it is being used correctly, regardless of whether a rationale has been provided. You can either help by providing a rationale, picking a more specific template or (gasp) actually helping fix article content. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and make the reason parameter mandatory. This template is certainly useful, not all people want to spend several minutes searching for a right template when all what is needed is few words explaining the issues. 1exec1 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves to inform editors that work needs to be done on the article. It indicates that the article had defects enough to merit the effort of tagging. AshLin (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• I said it before and I'll say it again. Delete. This by far is the most generic and thus useless template we have; I'm surprised it has survived this long.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2012; 17:32 (UTC)
• Delete or deprecate etc. It's really amusing to me to see this nomination as I had questioned the template myself in August 2006. The "cleanup" template is as vague as can possibly be. It's a very rare occasion when I see the template placed with thought and care rather than spammed by out of control twinkle users. There are simply too many other templates with a more specific mission than "cleanup". The oldest category for CU tags is February 2007 and look at a few articles like Space Cat that have no obvious problems that aren't already marked by another template anyway. The cleanup template is old and useless. Brad (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Space Cat? Seriously? When the tag was applied back in 2007 it was missing references, categories, included redlinks etc. It did need a good cleanup then. That {{Cleanup}} does not apply now is a fault of the editors who haven't removed the tag, not of the tag itself. Space Cat is as poor an example as Platform shoe. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I have been in the position of having fixed issues in an article but unsure if I have cleaned it up enough. The Copyedit template is a good replacement for tagging a badly written article, and the specific structure improvement templates will cover the rest. Speciate (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, make the parameter mandatory and use a bot to clear the uses without a parameter. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Which would be pointless because there'd be virtually no transclusions left. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hardly pointless, correct usages would remain, and new usages would correctly provide a reason/parameter. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Too general. Dan653 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with User:RJFJR (see comment of 17:58, 3 February 2012 above). Bwrs (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete any maintenance tag that suggests you should see the talk page for suggestions. I've followed this suggestion literally hundreds of times to find no suggestions. The tag itself is hopeless without someone taking the time to explain what needs to be "cleaned up". It rarely happens in my experience. The tag should be specific or shouldn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Delete; in my opinion the purpose for a visible maintenance tag in mainspace is a caveat to a Wikipedia reader (as opposed to editor). If the neutrality of an article is in question or if it is poorly sourced it is important for an average reader to know this, but if it is poorly written or if sections are missing this is evident to anyone looking at it. Having countless tags throughout articles takes away from the asthetics of the page and are rarely productive. If this was changed to an invisible category or even moved to the talk page I would have no problem keeping it but otherwise it should not be used visibly in articles. J04n(talk page) 21:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful template to document an article in need of cleanup. Yes, it's nice if an editor tagging it would instead use a more specific tag (assuming one exists; it doesn't always). But it's noting an article in need of cleanup is the first step in getting that article cleaned up. Making that more difficult by requiring an edito to go do template research is a Bad Thing; and not all editors are Twinkle users. Besides, sometimes even without a reason being listed, the issues with an article are evident from just looking at it; and that's especially the case where there are a lot of issues, and no one's interest is served by forcing an editor to catalog them in order to bring a messed-up article to the attention of those who want to do cleanup. TJRC (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stupid template unless those who add it actually say what is wrong with an article, otherwise it's a drive-by magnet for edit-countititis. Force it to be useful otherwise get rid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • None of what you mentioned is an issue. But a zillion articles with {{cleanup}} and literally NO FUCKING EXPLANATION as to what needs cleanup. THAT is a problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No not really. All you need is to use your eyes and your brain and you can quickly figure out what is wrong with an article tagged for cleanup. If there's no obvious reason then it's more than likely that it was already cleaned up by someone else who neglected to remove the tag, so just remove it yourself. This is why we have a date parameter. If the tag has been sitting there since 2006 then it's stale and most likely isn't applicable anymore. Just remove it. Simple. There's no need to delete the tag, the tag isn't the problem, people are. -- œ^™ 02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• most certainly DO NOT use a bot to delete. As many have noted, there are perhaps thousands of articles that have been flagged with this template to indicate to editors and readers that we know the article does not meet our standards. A simple removal of the flag might make the article "look" prettier, but does absolutely nothing to address the fact that content of the article was not up to standards. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Trying to decipher what caused a vague tag to be placed on an article is a huge waste of valuable man-hours. If a tag includes no concrete information that would point an editor seeking to improve the article in the right direction, it should be removed. Since virtually all uses of this template are exactly that kind of vague and useless tag, deleting it will save a huge amount of backlog shoveling. -- LWG ^talk 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A cleanup tag is a little silly, when you get right down to it. Everything on WP requires cleanup, with the probable exception of good articles and featured articles, and then only at the time of them gaining that status. 99% of articles require that tag in the same way that 100% require a tag saying {{editor required}}. ClaretAsh 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I find them useful. Has anybody from the delete side actually done a trawl through random articles to see some of the worst articles out there? Sometimes this tag is the only thing that fits the bill, unfortunately. --John (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep it as a small clickable note on the left: To me such templates are not problematic in themselves, but the sheer size of it is what is outrageous. Such templates are mostly notes (mostly subjective) from some editors to other prospective editors of the page. the general reader need not be over-concerned with such matters between editors. It's the "visibility to the general reader that is so bothersome". The solution for this and all other sorts of "edit templates" is to create a section on the left column. I suggest naming it "Editing templates" where the objection of this or that editor appears as a brief notation (clickable for expansion for further details). So for example this template clean-up remains, but not splashed all over the top of articles, but a single word "Clean-up" on the left. We already have sections for "Interaction", "Toolbox", "Languages" etc... so we can have one more for section for "edit notes".... listed in one or two words (clickable for expansion). E.g. "Expand", "Bare URLs", "Wikify", "More citations", "Notability", "Tone", "Longer intro", "Advertising", "Related party" etc. This way we will get rid of an annoying "Multiple issues template" as well. Each issue of these "multiple issues" will get its brief clickable one or two word note ON THE LEFT in this "in-between editors" section. All established editors could be trained to keep an eye on these notes to improve. Meanwhile the general non-Wikipedian reader can continue to read without seeing these "eyesores"... And one final friendly suggestion to all editor colleagues. If there is a problem on a certain page, how about trying to fix it yourself since you did recognize it needed cleaning up, instead of putting a template and moving on.... I say one article you clean-up is better than 10 articles where you splash a "clean-up" template on and move on... werldwayd (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • On an additional note on this proposed solution, how about making these notes visible ONLY when you are signed in. The general anonymous reader does not see these notes at all. werldwayd (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of these templates need to be easily visible to the average reader in order to alert them to problems with the article that could affect its reliability. For example, {{Original research}} alerts readers to a major issue and makes them aware that they shouldn't rely on it. Other maintenance tags are important in the same way. And don't throw the general disclaimer at me as a reply; how many people actually read that? I'd wager that the answer is "not enough". Thus, we need to give them in-your-face alerts when an article has major problems and they shouldn't rely on it. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is useful for articles that have more than one issue to be resolved - it neatly replaces a stack of other templates and the time needed to find out how they're called (if they exist at all). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per above statements! ~ A note: "the last time I nominated this" ???... dear TenPoundHammer, please, remember that Wikipedia is not about winning. Happy editing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's not about that. I renominated it only because the last nominations were "no consensus". Is that wrong? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• The last nomination resulted in a "no consensus" result, which you then tried, and failed, to have turned into "keep but deprecate" at DRV, which is effectively a delete. The result of the first TfD was keep, but you still nominated it again and the result of that was also keep, so the claim that you "only" nominated it this time was because last time was "no consensus" doesn't ring true. It does seem that you're going to keep nominating the template every 6 months until you get the result you desire, ie until you win and the template is deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, the tag is never (not that I've seen, anyway) paired with any useful information. Like someone said above, anyone who can find and use this template can find more specific templates. These general use templates are useless in nearly every case. Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Helps newish editors who might not know about other maintenance tags help the community identify articles that have issues that need to be sorted out. Zangar (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I see this as an invalid argument. If you know about {{cleanup}}, surely you know about at least a couple other maintenance templates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. More specific tags available. Though I disagree with "[artefact of] simpler times, before there were as many potential problems in an article". No, actually, there were a lot more problems at the beginning (um... lack of content? little to no verifiability?), now there are a lot less and are a lot more underlined and nitpicked until the article goes to hell at the desire of some group of editors or another. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. More specific tags available. General tagging invites abuse and lazyness. Hittit (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. I have never yet found it used where there are any reasons given on the talk page, and so it is too open to abuse. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. There needs to be a general cleanup template because:

1. It's not possible to create a template for every potential issue an article could have, and
2. Even if there were a template for every issue, no one would be able to find the exact template they needed.

At the very least, this template alerts potential editors that there is something wrong with the article that requires a more careful look. An alternative would be to replace this template with a very small number of general cleanup templates at a slightly more specific level, e.g. "cleanup-form", "cleanup-content", and "cleanup-citations". 138.16.32.85 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that, albeit in good faith, you're probably wrong. Wikipedia is already overspecialised in finding problems at the end of every sentence that looks at least vaguely suspicious, and the fixing of the article can be started from there. The specialised tags are intuitively named and not hard to find even for general readers with little knowledge of Wikipedia. Alternately, if it's kept, it should be strongly discouraged and restricted, and a warning should be applied to the template like on copyright tags that if the editor doesn't put a reason next to the tag, it should be removed immediately from the article. (People take more notice to those kinds of warnings that is believed.) --Anime Addict AA (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Dab. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - too generic and overused. More specific tags should be used instead (e.g. wikify, etc.). --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - useful template. Can't be easily replaced in all situations. Fix articles where used improperly - don't delete a tag because you are annoyed how it is used.ZayZayEM (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's not that I'm "annoyed", it's that the misuse is so rampant due to the template being too vague. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Absolutely agree it's too vague, especially given the considerable variety of specific templates at our disposal. This one basically says "there maybe is perhaps a slight possibility that this article could be improved somewhat". Shall we apply it to all non-FAs? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Only because it's polite. For some articles it should say "This article, if one can call it that, resembles a pile of foetid dingoes kidneys, but there may just be something salvageable by an editor with more time, dedication, skill and a stronger stomach than me." Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC).
    
    • Which would be rude, ambiguous and superfluous as opposed to being polite, ambiguous and superfluous. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - But require rationale be used either by policy or by software modification. Ronk01 talk 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete; the nomination is persuasive although I don't agree with every word of it. Wikipedia has developed over time (and emphasis is shifting from quantity to quality) and the need for a general cleanup label has been eroded by the proliferation of labels for much more specific quality problems (translation cleanup? Cleanup after vandalism? Copyediting? Specific style issues? There are a hundred types of cleanup). As for drive-by tagging, well, we can hardly expect every editor to resolve every issue they find, because the chances are there's somebody else who relishes a particular kind of cleanup - but that's a reason to move usage away from a general cleanup tag and towards our more specific tags. As it stands, this template isn't helping readers and it isn't helping editors. bobrayner (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or deprecate and redirect to Template:Multiple issues, which is a far more useful tool, as it gives new editors specific guidance to tagging specific issues within the article. We should make it as easy as possible for new editors by transitioning from vague complaints to specific guidelines. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reply - However, if someone who comes to Wikipedia for research and sees a bank of maintenance tags at the article under Template:Multiple issues, it makes Wikipedia look bad. If new editors are unsure, they can use the cleanup tag. Which may prompt them to use templates from WP:TC. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• If we want to make it easy for new editors, pointing them to {{multiple issues}} is not the way to do it. I use {{multiple issues}} a lot and even I find it confusing sometimes. The desired output is not always what you'd expect. Using {{cleanup}} is a lot easier than having to work out which of {{multiple issues}}' many options is more appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep When I need an info on an obscure topic for my work, I look up Wikipedia in a hurry. Sometimes I notice the article is all broken up, but I don't have time to fix it because I am at work. If there is no easy way to say "please someone check this article", then I will just skip and forget, and so will do most users of this template. This would be a huge loss. If it is a visual problem for viewers, then let's just make it invisible. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, but keep {{cleanup section}}-- This is a very vague template and I have rarely seen articles with specific cleanup instructions. This is often used for "drive-by tagging" which is just as bad as drive by shooting. But I think we should keep the {{cleanup section}} tag as that describes a specific section needing cleanup and not like a whole article. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you just equate adding a tag to an article with someone getting shot? - Purplewowies (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep until something at least until a suitable replacement is created and both usage and consensus indicates that it is time to end-of-life the less-than-ideal Cleanup template with the new one. Throwing out a serviceable, albeit less than ideal, template before there is an adequate replacement is foolish and does not help to improve the encyclopedia at all. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 08:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Should be deprecated and usage of a more specific maintenance template in its stead encouraged. Hekerui (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Not everyone is a specialist - some people do like to do general cleanup on articles with a mixture of minor problems, some of which are not covered by other cleanup tags. Some articles have exceptional issues that are particular to that article that don't deserve their own cleanup tag, like say (just to invent a couple examples) having all the section headers at the wrong level, or giving dates in the medieval style. Not all people tagging articles can be expected to know all the cleanup tags. Rather than force them to learn everything all at once at the beginning, which is not the wiki way, we should give them feedback on other tags they should have used instead, in-context at the moment they misuse the {{cleanup}} tag. In fact, I can imagine some Wikipedians will specialize in the very task of replacing cleanup tags with more specific tags. Dcoetzee 09:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• What the hell is NOT covered by the other cleanup templates? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep—if there's a problem with drive-by tagging, it needs to be fixed, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Cleanup tags are valuable because not all cleanup tasks are covered by specific templates, because it's often better for both editors and readers when there are multiple related issues than tagging with "multiple issues", and because it's much easier for editors to use than learning the nuances for each specific template. I support the idea of making the rationale parameter mandatory. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again. The problem is so rampant that there IS no "fix". What cleanup task is not covered by a template? And MAKING THE RATIONALE PARAMETER MANDATORY DOES NOT FIX THE BILLIONS OF CLEANUP TEMPLATES THAT DO NOT HAVE IT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question Those advocating delete - do they have a consensus on what are they suggesting should replace it on all the articles currently tagged? (Answer probably is already here, but TLDR hit me hard after a while) --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and reply to question above - IMO if the article isn't at least GA the need to "Cleanup" the article is inherent in the status. Especially for stub related articles. I think there are a lot of good, useful tags but this one, like Expand that was recently deleted also, are simply to Vague and general to be of any real use. They only serve to detract the reader from the article and take up space. I think that many of them can be replaced by a more specific (possible multiple issues) detailing better what the problems are.--Kumioko (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. AussieLegend in the message of 17:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC) said many things I felt needed saying. However, I would add:

1. Since there is clearly no consensus for deletion, it must serve a useful purpose for all those who wish it kept. For me as a reader, it indicates the article is below par; and for me as an editor, it indicates the article may need some serious thought to divine the problems and put right.
2. Would I use it? Yes, but only with a reason, or longer rationale on the talk page, even if only to say that I can't put my finger on it - analysis sometimes fails.
3. And BTW, I'm appalled at the number of specific edit templates whose explanations are opaque; e.g. what the heck does the phrase 'in-universe' mean anyway? Somebody wrote that not every editor keeps a list of all possible edit templates in their head; well, even the ones that I've learned don't always make sense, and the needless proliferation of tags only makes editing seem too complex or too hard: it's a good way to drive potential new editors away.

Yahya Abdal-Aziz 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"In universe" means an article describes a work of fiction (a character, setting, etc.) as if it were a real thing, and it doesn't have enough real-world treatment of the fictional thing in question. For example, the article The Tipton Hotel treats a fictional hotel as if it were a real thing and contains almost no real-world treatment. In the template that points out this problem, the word "in-universe" links to the manual of style for fictional works. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another rampant problem I see with {{cleanup}} is that often, people will put it along with a more specific template. Isn't that kind of redundant? That's nothing but template creep, plain and simple. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. If there isn't a specific, pressing problem that can be easily summarised, and which readers need to be aware of, then discussion of an article's problems should be confined to the talk page. So POV, inadequately sourced, etc warnings should have a great ugly orange banner on the article page to warn readers, but for general unspecified cleanup? No. Raise concerns on the talk page for people who are interested in editing the article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep (but make "|reason=" mandatory). S*T*A*R*B*O*X (Drop a line!) 20:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. If the nom was wrong about the reason parameter, then what else is different? Also, what happened to another template, no matter how long-lived it was, should have no bearing at all on a new discussion about a different template. It's as if the implication is that by deleting one long-lived template, we have precedence to delete many more long-lived templates. I strongly disagree with that line of thought. There are precedents, to be sure, and they are useful, but whether or not a template is long-lived connected with another long-lived template that was deleted, one should have no weight on the other. The reason parameter should be used, and the template should be active only when that parameter is filled in. Without a reason, the template should not be visible. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. While I could potentially see the point of a "catch-all" type of template, to me it is far better to state each issue using multiple issues. That way I know exactly what is wrong, rather than just be told to "make this article better", which frankly applies to pretty much the majority of articles. QueenCake (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Ideally, use of such a template should be explained on the talk page lest it be removed by someone who doesn't see the problem(s). Could be useful for serious problems that don't have a specific template, not abusing multiple issues on articles when 10 cleanup templates could reasonably be used, or for users who haven't found all the other cleanup templates. Kilopi (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful template when rationale is provided.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - as an editorial-minded person it's a handy trigger to bring to mind cleanup to-do's and I do them. Don't need overly detailed instructions about what the article needs or not on the whole. If it looks bad, I try to fix it. Too much information about tasks is a form of nannying & in this country there's enough of that going on. Manytexts (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or make rationale mandatory. It is a meaningless tag. —Pengo 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: If what is messed up is so obvious that you don't need to specify, then it should be obvious without the tag. It's much easier than what has to be done now, which is deleting every tag where the people don't follow procedure and explain what is wrong, whether on the talk page or in some sort of rationale. "There's a problem with this article, but I'm not going to tell you what it is" is not only not useful, but actually hampers the editing process by creating unnecessary work for the person who actually tries to fix it. The annoyance is secondary. — trlkly 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment:If you can't delete it, then make it invisible if there's no rationale. If some goodhearted soul wants to go through some sort of category called "Articles that need cleanup without rationales" and fix the rationales, more power to them. But it's still useless to any person who actually is trying to use the article. — trlkly 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or require rationale: I'd say 95% of clean-up signs I've seen lacked rationale. As someone who's here and there spent time on clean-up duty, here's how it works for the rest of them: 30% of the rest, it's painfully obvious what needs cleaning up. 20% of the rest, it's not entirely clear if the original tagger's problem had been resolved, but there still seems to be some obvious work that could be done under the header of 'cleanup' - maybe this work might not merit a cleanup tag itself but it fits the bill. If these were the only pages tagged clean-up, then cleanup would be a relatively fast process. It's the other 50% of no-rationale clean-ups that gums the system up and slows the whole process down. For these, even after reading the page, its ambiguous as to which parts, or any parts, need clean-up and why they might.

For those pages, the tag was either applied too liberally or the problem has been fixed then, or there's a subtle but important problem that you can't find with your own pair of eyes. To even try to find out which it is, you have to dig through the history and find when the clean-up tag was applied and do gradual diffs since then. And so most of the "clean-up" work is time spent scratching your head reading the article which has no obvious problems, reading the diff, and trying to "psych-out" the original tagger to figure out if they just saw a problem you're not seeing or wrote it in response to something small, or if its been fixed. The majority of worktime spent because of the "convenient" categorizing of the template is just spent dealing with the problems caused by the template itself. Clean-up has its advantages, but for every 2 times its apt and helpful, there are another 2 where its a headache to editors (and often an unnecessary annoyance to readers) and those latter two have costly drawbacks that overshadow the advantages. Templates are supposed to save labor-hours. --Monk of the highest order^(t) 03:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. There's basically one good argument for keeping, and that's that "cleanup" is a nice simple template name for newcomers who want to place a maintenance template but don't know or care which one. That doesn't outweigh the general uselessness of this template. Everything on Wikipedia needs cleanup; if you have a specific complaint, stick it on the talk page. If the template is kept, I would strongly recommend massively shrinking the size to a tiny warning in some way. SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep modify the template to make the rationale mandatory, create a bot task to remove all non-rationaled cleanup templates. The template could be useful if used correctly; that it isn't by some people doesn't seem like a good reason to delete to me. If a useful tool is getting misused, modify the tool to make it harder to misuse. Don't throw out the tool. --Jayron32 05:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keepused on 26799 pages and IMO it's not worth the workload, on contributors, bots and the database. It's a general cleanup tag, and it's perfect for people to add to those articles you know are just not written right, but can't figure out why. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I do, however, see why it's a problem: so many tags. Snowfires idea seems good, make it smaller / confine to talk page. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep When new page patrolling, it's useful to be able to tag something as requiring simple cleanup in addition to other issues. Basically stuff which anyone who knows how to write a Wikipedia article does, but newbies don't. We could replace it with a template that says something like "article needs a mixture of copyediting, wikification, better choice of templates, insertion of relevant nav or infoboxes, working out whether it adheres to MOS, but the article meets the low bar of NPP" etc. Or we could just say "cleanup". As for the concern around 'drive-by' tagging? Yeah, it's not a big deal. Malicious tagging, I can see a problem with. But say I'm reading an article on the train on an iPad. I spot a bunch of concerns, so I tag it with a cleanup template using Twinkle. I haven't fixed the problem, but I've helped someone who is interested in fixing similar problems find those problems and fix them. What we need isn't to go through and delete cleanup templates, but to find better ways of encouraging people to use them more wisely. When WP:AFT5 comes out, prepare for the onslaught of feedback... and like cleanup templates, that feedback cannot be rebutted with "stop tagging and edit". —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Anyone who knows how to clean up, knows an article in need of cleanup when he sees it. It's that simple.

Since the template is so generic, editors looking for any article to clean up can just as well be clicking "random article". CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC) CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I think its pretty obvious at this point that there isn't enuogh to support a deletion of this template and there are some valid points on both sides. Personally I recommend we close this as no consensus to delete. I just don't see that keeping it open is going to change that. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – there's only 1 relevant, objective, metric related to this discussion and this is the fact that the template is extensively utilized. this is a priori proof that the template is needed. this template; not another related to it, or any other that according to your pov may or may not be better at conveying the pertinent info. deletion should not enter into this; it is needed, that is why it's used. if you think that the template needs improvement, edit it.

the other objective metrics (1. the backlog and 2. the unutilized parameters esp. "reason") are either irrelevant or the result of the way wikipedia functions. the whole wikipedia is a drive-by project; it is incumbent on those who are uncomfortable with this fundamental, structural aspect of wikipedia to keep applying, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, the flimsy bandaid of temporary article fixes in their respective areas of interest. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my comment was simply based on my perception of the Keep/Delete counts and the obvious lack of consensus to delete it and had nothing to do with nor making statements about whether this TFD had merits or not or what my vote was in it. Although I do admit if we do keep it we should add some parameters or something to allow the wording to be a little more infomative. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

my comment was general, and by no means solely directed at yours, although imo it applies there too. this is another tempest in a teapot; people's behavior will reflect in their editing whether it is in the application of this template or any other area of wikipedia. one could make a point that much of the above discussion is plain lazy, drive-by commentary; and easily nominate this discussion for speedy deletion, per the original poster's rationale. as i was implying in the comment above, wikipedia may be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but 30 minutes spent in it may well lead you to think that perhaps not everyone should.65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - This template is vague to the point of uselessness, and clutters up the article without providing any real benefit. It has been inappropriately and unhelpfully applied in the majority of cases, and even where a rationale has been appended to a talk page (exceedingly rare) this most often highlights the fact that a better, more specific tag would have been appropriate. All this tag seems to be is a favourite for lazy editors and those wishing to up their edit counts without putting in much effort. Pyrope 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This template is very useful when a page just has so many obvious issues that cleanup tagging for each problem is just ridiculous. Of course this template should be removed from pages that have no obvious reason for it being there, but this template helps a lot for tagging pages that have multiple issues. Liam987(talk)_{contributions} 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - I find it odd that people voting "keep" cite how many articles the template appears in, as though that fact testified to its usefulness, rather than highlighting exactly why it needs to be deleted: Because it is highly prone to abuse and highly resistant to removal. Any editor who has an irrational dislike for an article but can't find any problems with it under WP policy takes solace in this tag. And the template is so vague that there's no way to determine whether or not the problem it alludes to has been fixed, or even if it existed in the first place. Hence why the tag has proliferated so much: even when completely misplaced, its impossible to provide a decent rationale for removing it. The suggested "fix" of requiring editors to place rationale would just turn the template into a sloppier version of {{multiple issues}}.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for this and other cleanup templates

Partially based on the comments I haev seen on this and other cleanup related template TFD's lately I have started a discussion about making the Multiple issues template the new cleanup template here. I believe this will allow us to have a robust, modularized and descriptive cleanup template that will be informative enough to be useful to anyone reading the article. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - It's quite useful for general cleanup. As many specific templates as we have, not all of them adequately summarize the general need for review. "Drive by" tagging is seen as pejorative but in many cases those articles are just as bad as the cleanup tag suggests. If you're coming across a lot of mistagged articles... remove the tag! But this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This is useful, and I am baffled by the sudden nomination of longstanding-necessary templates. So long as we have very loose (almost non existent) quality control for new articles, this template is absolutely necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Too prone to drive-by tagging. Once it's tagged, people refuse to take it off. Sometimes when the article's improved, the tag is still not taken off. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete This is too general. I'd rather see a multiple issues tag detailing what exactly needs to be fixed. This doesn't specify anything and ultimately isn't helpful. Cadiomals (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It's not often the most appropriate template, but it is better that it be available for those who want to mark an article as needing attention, but not knowing how or what to say more specifically, or being casual users and not wanting to learn all the possibilities. Any way of marking articles for improvement is better than not marking them. Amd perhaps we do need something to say that "this is just generally awful overall" DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  People like that rarely know of this template's existence, comment on the talk page and are ignored for years. Something should be done about that, if anything. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still not really seeing a lot of logical backing on the "keep"s, just a lot of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's OK, I'm sure others are. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This template is useful iff used correctly. Let a bot remove the template if no reason parameter was specified. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify. My message was to use the Multiple issues template instead of cleanup. I'm not sure all the comments here are related to the comment I left or for the Cleanup template deletion. It appears to be the latter. --Kumioko (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the latter, probably because the heading level you used was the size of regular text. I know I didn't realize you'd made a new section until I'd looked at it a couple times. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as a deprecated artifact of Wikipedia's earlier days. It was useful when we had less articles and some talented editors were more likely to come across a so-tagged article, see what needed to be done and do some of it. But now ... we have so many more issue-specific cleanup templates, plus {{multiple issues}} which by its very name forces the tagger to identify specific areas of concern. For really comprehensive issues for which a responsible editor might want to go into at length on the talk page, I think, {{cleanup-rewrite}} covers the same ground.

  This reminds me of {{unencyclopedic}}, which made more sense in the halcyon days of yore for the same reasons. Four times in one year we considered deleting it, and didn't, but it grew less and less necessary and less and less used until someone finally made it a redirect to {{NOT}} over two years ago. I don't see any real difference here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Query: Is it possible to create a bot that searches out articles with this template, marks them with templates for redlinks or any other obvious-to-a-bot issues, and then removes this template? If this is possible, Keep. If not, Keep but require rationale, and create a bot to remove all instances without a rationale. Jorgath (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand your question but yes a bot could be created to find articles with this template and could populate most of the parameter types available in the Multiple issues template. --Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I have done significant wiki-editing (mostly elsewhere than wikipedia) I have no experience with bot-creation or the limits of bots. But anyways, I therefore support the creation of a bot that will search out and replace the cleanup template with more specific problem tags, and I support keeping the cleanup template so that casual editors can use it and let the bot try to figure it out. Jorgath (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - just encourages drive-by tagging; nom covers my delete reasons quite well. Mfko 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfko (talk • contribs)

• You do realise that I addressed a number of flaws in the nomination in this edit don't you? The issue of "literally no one is using the rationale field" has been rebutted by a number of editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's strange to say that "no one is using the rationale field" has been rebutted when your own comment that you are linking to establishes that around 5% of cleanup tags have a rationale. I'd say that, with a little hyperbole admitted, that's around "no one using it" or at least "very few people" using it. The rationale field has been around for seven months out of the eight years this template has been alive, but even assuming the number of edits/day were constant and that somehow the distribution of cleanup tags today was even across all the eight years, that should leave around 1/16 tags with the rationale if people were mostly using a rationale (vs. 1/26). As it is , most clean-up tags are probably from the last few years, meaning that if only 20,000 comments are from the past three years (and again, spread out evenly), then still more than 75% of taggers in the last seven months decided it wasn't worth using a rationale (even when that field was available). That the backlog of clean-ups is relevantly recent doesn't say as much about the burden the clean-up tag puts on wikipedias as it does to the round-the-clock work of editors. Work which would, I think, be made easier by requiring tagging to be more communicative. --Monk of the highest order^(t) 00:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's not strange at all to say that it has been rebutted. Roughly approximating the number of edits as you've done doesn't provide any useful information because there are numerous unknowns that skew the results wildly; cleanups being done, variations in the number of editors etc. We can't simply assume an equal number of edits each day. Even recent stats don't help. They show the number of articles using {{Cleanup}} has decreased in the past five days. If we were to approximate the number of edits per day as constant as you suggest, and assume all 1,000 articles tagged with a reason were tagged in the last 7 months then that means that 5 of the 9.2 people adding the template to an article each are including a reason, which is completely different to what you've approximated. What we can say for sure is that 1,000 articles have been tagged using a reason and that shows editors are using it, which clearly rebuts the nominator's claim that "literally no one is using the rationale field. NO ONE.". --AussieLegend (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep A most widespread and useful template, used on at least 5000 or more pages, deletion of this template would require a massive redlink removal. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to devil's advocate at you, your argument concerning the deletion scope is good for not deleting it entirely, but it's ALSO a strong argument for in some way discontinuing any future use of the template. Jorgath (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete - "drive-by tagging" barely conveys the use of most tags, and this one is the worst. It just sits there for years making the page look ugly, casting doubt on what may be good content. Why don't folks just fix it instead of tagging - does tagging without fixing solve anything? My suggestion is remove all tags that have been on a page for over two months, or put all tags on the talk page. Smallbones (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep only if the reason is made mandatory; it's rare that editors using this tag explain their rationale on the talk page. Otherwise, delete; as the tag is used now, it's too vague to be useful. Miniapolis (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, still used and is useful. I remember around 7 years ago there were various debates about whether this tag and similar tags should be put on the article page or on the talk page. I advocated for the former, but I never imagined that this would result in the mess that now appears on many articles. I would much rather see this tag on an article page than a whole laundry list of specific tags. I would be willing to change my opinion if the nominator or anyone else were to undertake a project to re-tag everything tagged with {{cleanup}} with more appropriate tags. I also want to emphasise that I think it is a particularly bad idea for this tag to just be mass-removed from articles as a few commentors have suggested. JYolkowski // talk 01:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 16

  • Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) should be replaced as noted in the TfD. JPG-GR (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 5

  • {{Infobox AFL player}} should be merged into {{Infobox AFL biography}}, preserving the format of {{Infobox AFL biography}}.

  Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 20

  • Template:Infobox hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) into Template:Infobox building (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - JPG-GR (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I have done some research, and started a talk at:Template talk:Infobox hotel . -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 6

  • Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13

  • {{Infobox Barcelona station}} should be merged to {{Infobox station}}

  Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13

  • {{Infobox Spain station}} should be merged to {{Infobox station}}

  Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 22

  • Merge {{Incomplete}} into {{Expand further}}

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

• None currently

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

• None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 7

  • Template:Infobox Chicagoland municipality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

  Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 3

  • Template:Jackie Chan Adventures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

  Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 3

  • Template:Cleanup-chartable (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

• None currently