Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

December 16[edit]

Template:In[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but some consensus to at least change it to use ∈. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:In (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Conditional Delete – It is unnecessary; but it is not unused. There are, in fact, 14 uses of this template. If the nom, i.e. Mhiji, agrees to fix the red links that will appear then I'll !vote for it to be deleted. Fly by Night (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, per FlyByNight. Rehman 12:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment there are actually only two uses (transclusions). If you check the links to those, you will see that there was some history regarding this template being deleted, then repurposed. I would suppose that orphaning the one transclusion, then redirecting this to {{indent}} might be a good idea. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this is supposed to be used for easy access to the character, like {{TM}} is there so that you can easily get to the ™ character. See also: Category:Typing-aid templates. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fly by Night. {{TM}} inserts the hard-to-add special character ™ but this template inserts math markup. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note see 2009 August 27#Template:In for a prior TFD when it was an indentation template. Checking the deleted history, it has been used for at least three different purposes in the past. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. There may not be many transclusions because this template can and should be substituted. It's a typing aid, for people (like me, for one) who don't have math markup or alt codes memorized. Because it's usually substituted, it's harmless. --Bsherr (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep – useful when inserting mathematical formulae. (Note: I've substed one of the remaining three trasclusions; the other two are based off an older version (that was deleted) that used the template for spacing.) mc10 (t/c) 21:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The template is basically <math>\in</math>, so it use involves mixing maths markup and standard markup. If you going to use math markup its better to go the whole way and use <math>a\in A</math> a\in A, using normal markup you want the unicode character U+2208; ∈, i.e. aA. Which has the entity name &isin;. So the template encourages bad practice.--Salix (talk): 08:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, very usefull when substed, but change to ∈ rather than \in. Headbomb 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep seems like an easy way to make that symbol. --AW (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and change to ∈ per Salix alba and Headbomb --Waldir talk 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Expand[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. On "vote count" we have 65-68 "delete" votes (depending on how IPs are counted), versus 67 "keeps". Under most conditions, with reasonable arguments on both sides which are in rough balance, I would close deletion discussions like this one as "no consensus". However, these conditions are not normal, and rather than an *FD, it is really more of a policy RFC (and this TFD discussion was indeed listed on RFC) on how we convey the message that an article needs expansion. I have reviewed the quality of the arguments presented, based on how the template contributes to actual improvement of articles. After this review, I found the arguments against the template to be lopsidedly stronger.

The first point of matter is one which many (but not everyone) have ignored, despite it being pointed out several times: The template in question is {{expand}}, which consists of the text: "Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page." This is not the same as the {{expand section}} template which consists of the text: "This section requires expansion." The tag nominated on this TFD is general it asks for an expansion of the article but is vague on detail. The section tag which many of the keep voters point out is useful is not being nominated for deletion.

We now come to the question of where this template is supposed to be used. It is not supposed to be used on stub articles; these have specific stub templates which sort the articles by category. Rather the template is meant for articles which are not stubs, but still need more information in such a general sense that section tagging is insufficient. To show that such articles exist, Alan Liefting has provided a list of five such articles, but after looking at them, I don't find the argument convincing:

  • Waste in the United States is so thoroughly short that it is a stub, and has already been classified as such.
  • Ferrous metal recycling requires a massive section expansion under "Recycling by country" (more countries than the US are needed), and that section has been tagged while the general article tag has been removed.
  • Aquifers in the United States is suffering mainly because it has no proper lead section, and something like {{Lead rewrite}} seems to be the appropriate tag.
  • Air pollution in Canada is also a very short article which could and probably ought to be marked as a stub.
  • Mobile phone recycling is tagged as needing expansion, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate what needs to be expanded, or why expansion is needed.

After considering the arguments made and evidence presented, I feel the "delete" side has provided a well-reasoned rationale that the stub-templates can fill the role of this template, and the argument has not been adequately rebutted.

A specific concern over the template is its misuse by drive-by taggers who cannot determine a specific shortcoming with the article. It has been legitimately pointed out the abuse of a tag does not justify a template's deletion per se, but the concern remains valid if it is a template which lends itself to this kind of abuse. To determine an answer to that question, I now turn to whether there is a policy or guideline based concern justifying the tag. Responding to a point made by Jclemens that there are several other cleanup tags which could be deleted on this basis, it needs to be pointed out that most maintenance tags point to a specific policy or guideline concern, for example a concern that the article contains original research, lacks citations, or that the article is written in an overly promotional tone. However, a request that an article contain more information is not one founded in any policy. That means that application of the tag is based solely on the whim of an editor, and not applied based on a policy which asks for clean-up. The "too easy to use in drive-by tagging" concern is valid, and not adequately rebutted.

Some of the concerns mentioned could be addressed by a different template (for example, a template a required parameter to specify what with the article needs expanding), but that would be a different template from the one being discussed here.

After reviewing all the arguments made, I find that the delete votes have provided a very strong case that a vague message asking to expand the article without specifying what needs to be expanded is not useful. I am closing this TFD accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


The {{expand}} template is up for deletion, again, as obsolete. Mono (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Expand (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

My rationale is roughly that expressed at Wikipedia:ALTEXPAND ... "The {{expand}} template originated from a now-obsolete portion of the project: Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, which dated back to 2003 if not earlier. In November 2008, the backlog at Requests for expansion was only piling up higher and higher without anyone seeming to take care of it, and as a result, the project was tagged as inactive. Not that the backlog has gone down, either; Category:Articles to be expanded is closing in on 100,000 articles."

This tag merely states the obvious. The page that fathered it was abandoned because it was deemed to not serve any useful purpose. Prior TfDs have suffered from a lack of wider participation, leading to reluctance to close such a widely used template as delete, so I plan to advertise this one more fully so that consensus might be determined. Gigs (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to prior discussions 134.253.26.6 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
4 July 2010 no consensus (endorsed by DRV)
17 April 2010 delete (overturned by DRV).
13 July 2007 keep
  • Delete and/or replace with something more genre specific. Having a backlog of 100k articles needing to be expanded is not useful. This is also a bit redundant to the "stub" tags, which at least put the articles in subcategories based on genre. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't vote twice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Where did he vote twice? Gigs (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I was confused. Still, they are canvassing on your behalf and that looks a bit fishy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I know. I wish he wouldn't have done that. I do wish I had a job at Sandia though. :) Gigs (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've found it odd for a while that we have both this template and also stubs. We don't need both - they have the same function. And stubs do the job better. They mean that articles which are in need of expanding are categorised - they are more likely to be expanded this way, as no-one is going to go through this list of 100,000 articles and start improving them, but if categorised, editors interested in a particular subject can see which of the articles they are interested in need information adding to them (and WikiProjects can keep an eye on articles of interest to their project). Also stubs are less obtrusive - they are placed at the bottom of the article so are not obtrusive but still noticeable. I realise other cleanup templates are placed at the top, but articles which need expanding will often have the notice on them for a long time, and stub templates are usually quite noticable anyway, since the articles they are on are quite short anyway. Also, per nom, it's nearly always obvious when an articles need expanding (it is very short). Mhiji (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there is something in the documentation of this template about not placing it on stub articles... And if not, then there should be. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There is, since November 2007, [1] later emboldened in April 2008. [2] --Tothwolf (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and speedy close per WP:NOTAGAIN (and yes, I know where that links). This template is widely used, not redundant, not obsolete, and after at least 5 TFDs, including an overturn at DRV, enough is enough.

    To quote myself from the last DRV: "This template is intended for an article that is past the stub threshold but still in need of expansion." Template:Expand/doc states: "{{Expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion. {{Expand}} should only be used on articles that are beyond stub length, in place of a stub template."

    We just got through with the TFD for {{Expand further}} and have had ongoing discussions on Template talk:Expand, such as Template talk:Expand#Type. Deleting this template would also break twinkle again until twinkle is updated (yes, this has happened before). --Tothwolf (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

    • {{expand further}} could actually be useful, since it at least says something meaningful, unlike this one, which merely states the obvious. Gigs (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Why speedy?! Clearly, this template would not be deleted without also updating Twinkle. I agree, {{expand further}} could be useful, but that's irrelevant really since we're not discussing deleting that here. I realise that the doc explicitly states that this should not be used as well as a stub template, but there is quite clearly a duplication of function between the two. And there's not a clear defined line where we should use one or the other. We either need a clear guideline as to what is a stub and what is an article which needs expanding, or we just use either one or the other. I don't see how it would be possible to draw a line (and what's the point of having this issue when it doesn't need to be there). I don't really mind which, but as I explained, the stub system has benefits which this doesn't - it wouldn't make sense to delete that. Mhiji (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the point raised here that a more concrete guidline is needed for determining the difference between Stub articles and Need Expansion articles.
What are the benefits to the stub system that this template doesn't have? Would it be possible to migrate some of those benefits over? This may merit it's own discussion, but the possibility should be considered before deleting this template. I'll investigate it for my personal use, but explaining what you mean here would better document the discussion.
This is not a vote either way. I'll do that soon. Michaeloqu (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The stub-system has a lot of sub-categories (WP:STUBSORT) but categories can be transferred to {{expand}} (for example in a way the {{AFD1}} template uses). The second "benefit" might be that stub-tags are less obtrusive than this template, since they are at the bottom and not in an ambox but the difference makes sense as {{expand}} is for articles where a) the bottom is not immediately in view (while stub-articles are so short that the stub-tag is almost always visible at first glance) and b) the need for expansion might not be as apparent as it is for a stub-tag, especially since {{expand}} can be placed on articles that seem exhaustive but which address crucial information in multiple areas too briefly or not at all. As a number of people pointed out, changes to the template are both possible and desirable without having to delete it. Regards SoWhy 09:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that there are many articles that need expansion is no reason to delete the template. By that logic, we might as well delete most of our cleanup tags, because nothing much ever seems to get done about them. Expand tells readers an article appears to be too short, which is just fine. FWIW, I was canvassed by an IP to comment here. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This is ridiculous. This deletion cycle also seems to be a regular occurence. I too was also canvassed into showing up here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry if you didn't appreciate the notice. I don't believe it is WP:CANVASS if you notify both sides. I believe it is then WP:Publicising discussions. I have stopped though per your request. I have no agenda, other than making sure there is wide input. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    Bullshit. Notifying sixty eight people of a discussion that they participated in in the past is clearly canvassing, regardless of any agenda that you might or might not have. Just allow others to find this discussion but do not notify every person who has ever voted in prior discussions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    There are nicer ways to say "please don't do that". As I said, I have stopped, and won't do it again. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    Hmm, to quote Wikipedia:Canvassing here. "On the talk pages of individual users, such as those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" is an appropriate notification. It might have been overkill here but it's clearly not canvassing since the IP seemed to have notified both sides. Garion96 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    Please be civil. Mhiji (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    I personally believe that to be perfectly reasonable. I employ the same methodology's when performing an AfD. If I see users have contributed in one form or another to the subject in question or users in relation to such (such as informing a WikiProject which may be in relation to such). I believe it is only a violation of WP:CANVAS when you blatantly go forth to swing the decision in one specific direction. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    No hard feelings, to the IP. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tothwolf. – Allen4names 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The deletion rationale overlooks that it is addressed to readers & potential improvers of the articles themselves. Wareh (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But all readers and potential improvers know what Wikipedia is - everyone knows they can improve the articles by editing them. We don't need to spell it out. Mhiji (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary, pointless and self-referential. There is no need for a template asking for expansion. That is implicit across all articles in the encyclopedia. It would be more sensible and useful having a template that asked people not to expand -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep invalid argument by nom for deletion. Marcus Qwertyus 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It doesn't really matter what argument has been provided by the nom. There's loads of valid arguments in this discussion and in the previous discussion. Just a vote is pointless, instead why not respond to some of the other issues raised? Mhiji (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably not the most useful of templates (more useful for sections than for whole pages), but it serves a purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • There's already {{Expand section}} to highlight individual sections for expansion. We're not discussing deleting that. Mhiji (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know all that. I was simply comparing this one with the section one. Sorry if that wasn't clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, it's just I'm a bit confused. Why should we keep this one if it's not very useful? Mhiji (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Frankly, I think I was clear about that. I didn't say it's not very useful. I just said it's less useful than some others. Which is hardly a reason to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
            • You're not being very clear... You said "it serves a purpose". What purpose does it serve? Mhiji (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
              • At this point, I should probably just ignore you, because this is becoming badgering, but I'll answer anyway, more for the benefit of others reading this than for you. Someone creating an article, beyond the stub stage, can use it to ask for more editors help develop the page. Someone who feels strongly that a page needs to cover more information, but isn't personally able to do it (perhaps for lack of expertise), can use it to alert other editors to consider doing so. I understand the arguments made in this discussion, that every page in the project is a candidate for expansion, but this tag is a way of getting the attention of editors who might otherwise pass on by, and ask them to consider staying a bit and improving the page. Now having said all that, I will add that I'm not going to lose any sleep if the decision is to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
                • Thanks. Sorry if you felt I was badgering you - I wouldn't have had to if you'd provided a full explanation of your position from the beginning... Mhiji (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 1[edit]
  • Keep. To me, a stub is very short, with maybe one or two sources. The expand template should not be used with a stub; rather, it warns the person consulting a longer and more developed article that whatever its length and extent of sourcing, it's still missing aspects of the topic that may be important. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably redundant for articles, but useful for sections as a place-holder to get the structure right (e.g. here, where the article is being written out-of-order). Simon Brady (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
True, but this hits {{expand|section}}, so that would need to be auto-converted somehow.Simon Brady (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Instances which use {{expand|section|...}} could simply be replaced with {{expand section|...}}. So if that was done would you have any objections to deleting this template? Mhiji (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete. OK, if that can be done cleanly then I see no need to keep the template under discussion. If I stumble across an article requiring expansion I'd rather see a more specific template that tells me what needs expansion (yes, that's what the talk page is for, but the template helps me make an immediate call on whether it's worth spending time reading that discussion). Simon Brady (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the idea that {{expand-section}} is virtually always better than {{expand}}. But we are refining vague suggestions for improving articles into more focused ones all the time. So perhaps what we really need is a campaign for more critical and attentive editors to remove {{expand}} from articles and replace with {{expand-section}} and {{empty section}}. It seems if we abolish {{expand}} we are hindering and not promoting such a hope. Wareh (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. As useful as any other maintenance template, historical details about dead Wikifunctionality aside. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But other maintenance templates are specific, e.g. {{Cleanup-link rot}}, {{lead missing}} etc. - these templates are useful as they are added to notify editors of specifically what needs to be done, and then once it's done they are removed. Per Mr.Z-man, you could add this template to almost any article which is not a FA, and there's no defined time when it should be removed, they just stay there for ages and ages... Mhiji (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The origins of the template or its misuse are not reasons for deletions. I use the template because I do not have unlimited time, topic knowledge or skills to create a complete article. I use it when splitting article or when creating article that should exist. It should not be overused and should only be added to a section rather that the article if possible. A quick look at the Jan 2007 articles showed that the template is not really needed on a number of them. Everyone seems to have a different idea as to how long an article should be so the stub and expand templates end up being quite freely used. We should be ruthless and remove the template from all but articles for which it is really needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But how do we decide "for which it is really needed"? It's extremely subjective. There's no consistency at the moment as to where it's used. If we cull the number of uses, surely editors will just re-add them in a few months/years time (per Mr.Z-man, you could add it to pretty much any article which isn't a FA). We'll just end up in the same position again eventually..... and then cull them again and end up in this position again and again... Mhiji (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - One of the most pointless and overused templates. Of course an article can be expanded, this is Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. please. Shimgray | talk | 23:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - A very useful template. --ilamb94 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment A serious question. How is it useful? I honestly can't see what possible use it serves. It is too broad to use as a coordination tool for future work, it generally states the obvious and the invitation to expand is implicit by the nature of a wiki. What purpose does it serve? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As a mechanism with which to say "this article needs attention in expansion" rather than imply with a stub that there is a quality issue. ForgottenHistory (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete - Completely useless. This template conveys no useful information to editors or readers. Almost every article that isn't an FA likely could use significant expansion. Mr.Z-man 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: That is not enough of a rationale to delete. While most articles need expansion, particular sections can be targeted for expansion especially so. Sometimes one section is filled out fine, and another needs a lot of TLC. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • But we can use {{Expand section}} for that, so that's no reason to keep this template. Mhiji (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. Gage (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It is quite useful for tagging sections for expansion as it is the only template that allows section expansion. Whereas stub can only be used on certain short articles. Also per WP:NOTAGAIN. Alpha Quadrant talk 00:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That was my initial reasoning too, but we have {{expand section}} for that purpose and it's apparently possible to bulk-convert all the instances of {{expand|section}}. Simon Brady (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep To generally address a few comments above, just because an article isn't extremely long or overly detailed doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be expanded. Sometimes, an article just is what it is. Then there are times when an article needs to be expanded, and at that time, you'd place the tag for expansion. The tag is more generally directed at persons or groups (i.e. WikiProjects) which generally have an interest in some form or another of maintaining an article. In the place of where an entire article may not need to be expanded and only a section or subsection (as is common with Reception sections on a lot of media-based articles), the expand-section tag is used. On that note, I'm forced to wonder why neither the Expand section nor the Expand Further tag have been nominated for deletion as well. It seems rather close to picking your spots as of which I'd say why are we going over this once more? If the template has faced numerous deletion discussions before and has had it overturned upon deletion review before as well, then it would seem to me that there is clearly a good reason for keeping it around. I'd go so far as to say 3 deletion nominations (this present one included) this year alone seems rather frivolous. That's pretty much the gist of my argument. For all other points necessary, refer to Tothwolf above - especially regarding the stub tag. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Nowyouseemetalk2me 00:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - While most articles need expansion, particular sections can be targeted for expansion especially so. Sometimes one section is filled out fine, and another needs a lot of TLC. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But we have {{expand section}} for that. Mhiji (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • In that case, instead of a deletion I would suggest a merger of some sorts. If you feel that Template:Expand further is useful, we could reorganize the functions under, say, one template. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 2[edit]
  • Delete. (canvassed by IP) As before. Not one editor that I have seen that likes this trinket has ever shown that this template is actively being used by experienced editors to actively seek out and expand articles, not least because we have at least 5 more efficient and less obtrusive ways of doing that. As such, it is frankly one of the most ridiculous, redundant templates we have, a true product of the Department of Redundancy Department, and a permanent visual stain on far too many pages that are actually quite passable otherwise. It doesn't even highlighting a 'problem' like all other such intrusive tags do. All of which is why it probably gets put up for deletion so often. 'Dude, get the message' cuts both ways. MickMacNee (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It is very helpful to place notices about specific problems. It is perhaps not quite as useful to post notices about non-specific problems, but that does not mean it is useless. there have been hundreds of articles I have marked this way, in the hope it will draw some attention & the person responding will figure out what will be helpful. I fail to see how the effect of this will not always be positive--anyone who wishes to replace a particular instance of it with a more specific template is welcome, but it would be even more useful if they simply did the necessary once they identified it--and, in fact, that;s true of all templates for article problems. They're just stand-ins for what we really need in each case, which is the actual improvements. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Its almost impossible for the result of the template to not be positive because its request is so overly broad. This is a wiki, every article will eventually be expanded, whether it has this template on it or not. There are more than a thousand articles that have been tagged for nearly 4 years. Is there any evidence that articles with this tag get expanded faster than those that don't? Mr.Z-man 02:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Tothwolf. This is disruptive and not constructive. I actively use the template to find pages that need expansion. It's a great tool and is usually used on a page that needs a little help. No need to see this great template go. Outback the koala (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Why speedy? Mhiji (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Special:Random would work just as well at finding an article needing expansion. Mr.Z-man 02:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I use it and it benefits the project. If you help a expand page along, I often find that a page watcher comes and helps that was not active before - on random article I do not find this. Only through expand template do I do this. I would stop likely if I didn't have the expand template, recent tags always get the best results, then you can detag them quick too. Try it. :) Outback the koala (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I fail to see how this template is helpful. Literally every single instance I've seen of this template has been a drive-by templating, with the templater never bothering to explain what in the article needs expansion. Any article that isn't FA-class is inherently need of expansion, so the template states the obvious. MickMacNee has valid arguments as well. What's more, this template was originally created for the requests for expansion page, a long since obsolete piece of Wikipedia history. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
If the tagging editor could expand the article, he would have done so. This template serves to draw attention to articles that are more than others in need of expansion, clearly lacking something. Someone who can, will hopefully add what the article is lacking. Debresser (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think "drive-by templating" can be desirable. If the contributor doesn't bother saying why, just tweak the template so that it breaks if no rationale is given, and putting it with no rationale produces a big red message saying "please add a reason why!" WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep – Not all articles that need expansion are stubs. –MuZemike 02:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Invalid argument. Are there any articles that don't need expansion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
"Not every Wikipedia article can be expanded. Some can become too large. And also this template best works on particular sections; i.e. to mark which sections need to be expanded. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)" quoting another editor from below Outback the koala (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per ten pound hammer. I see little good in a template that only says the obvious. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment to anyone who !voted keep: Have you ever seen this tag used for anything other than a drive-by templating? If so, show me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. On these articles:
and many more. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: "drive-by templating" can be desirable at times. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, on A Thousand Suns and on Constantine (film), though this admittedly is probably a poor example (though it came to mind) considering one was apparently added without any such explanation as to it's reasoning on the article's talk page (and as per such, I removed it). As a point of specific proof regarding Constantine (film), you should see what it used to look like before I added the expand tag and subsequently went to work doing so. Before I tagged it as in need of expansion and started going to work on it, the article was at Start class across the board. Now it's at C class and admittedly still needs some work (though I've backed off from it as of late). There are plenty other articles to which I've done the same, but these two stand out the most in mind. A Thousand Suns alone went from being Stub class to a C-class article after the work others and myself put into it and working it's way to B-class. I'd say that alone more than proves that the expansion tag has merit. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ talk 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
How so? In the case of Constantine, you began expanding it yourself within minutes of adding the tag. You finished editing it a few hours later and it was 29,888 bytes. The tag was removed yesterday, it is now 20,979 bytes. All of the significant expansion was done by you. After you finished, the article actually got substantially smaller; the tag accomplished nothing. If anything, it failed entirely. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to ask that you to take a significantly closer look at that article's history. Especially since the expand tag that was just removed was added only days ago as a fly-by-night tag, which was promptly removed by TenPoundHammer, most likely resultant from going to look at that article as a result of its mention here. So I'm definitely going to need you to take a closer look at the article's history of edits, please. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 11:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Does it state the obvious? Well, yeah. But so does Category:Living people. Just like that category, this tag serves a useful administrative purpose - to keep track of articles for which there has been a request for expansion. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It's one thing having a category at the bottom of the page and another putting a big, coloured obtrusive box at the top... Mhiji (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The size can be changed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That's kind of the purpose of these templates - they're huge and awful looking, so they make you want to address the issue so you can remove the box. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I realise, and it works with most of the cleanup templates e.g. {{Cleanup-link rot}}, {{lead missing}} etc. These templates work - editors see the huge awful looking box, look at what specifically needs to be changed from the text within it, make the change and then once it's done they remove the box (hooray!). With this one though, it's so general, no-one is ever sure when they should remove it or not. Have you added enough content to remove the template? (Probably not, as the article can nearly always be expanded, unless it's FA status). So they just stay there for ages... and some might never be removed. Mhiji (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
          • You could say that about a lot of templates, particularly the cleanup templates. Plot cleanup for a movie? How short should it be? Refimprove? How many refs is enough? Overlinking? How many links is too much? If you want specifics, that's what the article talk page is for. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes I agree, but at least those ones are more specific than this one. {{Plot}} tells the editor to look at the plot section and try and improve that. {{Refimprove}} tells the editor, why not google the topic to find some extra sources and then add them... It also acts as a warning for users who have contributed to that article already to say that their contributions might be removed if they don't WP:PROVEIT. This one just basically says "hey, you can edit this article to make it better if you like" (which I don't think needs to be stated - everyone that is on the site, even if they don't use it often, knows they can edit it). If this did need to be stated, then we'd have a banner across the top of the site saying "you can edit this!" which is permanently displayed on all articles. I fail to see how this template would ever be effective at improving productivity. Mhiji (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This template doesn't say "you can edit this article to make it better", it says that at least one editor believes that the article could use more information. There's a difference. This template is a good way of notifying editors that someone has requested for additional information to be added to an article. There's no other template that does the same thing. The cleanup ones all address specific problems. Stub templates are for articles that are too small. The expand template is for articles that aren't necessarily short or messy, but ones that need to be more comprehensive. --Jtalledo (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jclemens. Minimac (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep the cool thing about the backlog templates is that even if we don't work on the backlog, the public knows that we are admitting to certain issues with an article. Whereas if we don't have all these headers, their is no visible and public means of confessing that the community doesn't think it's a very good article yet. If we made assessments other than stub and FA a little more visible on the actual article page, I think we could eliminate these sorts of obvious backlog templates, Sadads (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But the general public know that Wikipedia is a work in progress anyway - they don't expect it to be perfect. There's no reason to keep this template if it's only purpose is to provide an excuse as to why an article is not as comprehensive as it could be. Mhiji (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Mick McNee. The section expand template can be useful, but this just defaces a page. Useless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per the reasoning of WP:ALTEXPAND. Saying that an article needs expansion isn't terribly helpful, as opposed to the other more specific templates. At the very least, an expansion template needs to change to force the template placer to describe how the page should be expanded. It's not that an expand template has no use, it's just that there are much, much better ways of marking such pages. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete It states the obvious, like {{copyedit}}, but unlike {{copyedit}}, the categorization is not a useful one. {{copyedit}} is backed by the copyediting guild/wikiproject, and any random English speaker can freelance contribute since copyediting is a general skill. In contrast, this template clearly lost organizational backing a while ago and "expansion" is not a general skill; some domain knowledge of the article's topic is generally required once it's beyond the stub stage. Since all non-GA or above article are generally incomplete, the grouping isn't even useful; wikiprojects group articles by subject and status, such already-extant organization is a more likely route for expansion. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep As stated in the last TFD, this template serves a purpose for articles where more specific templates are not applicable but the article already is past stub-status. For example, if one section of many on the page is empty, you can use {{expand|section}} but if two or more are empty, adding {{expand}} to the top is much better than having one in every section. Also, the whole point is to have a big huge reminder so that readers know something is missing. As Jtalledo states above, there are examples where non-stub articles lack information and {{expand}} can be used to signal that. I do understand Prosperosity's concerns though, i.e. that sometimes the template is used without any explanation as to what is missing. But that is a problem with usage and can be addressed by redesigning the template rather than deleting it (e.g. requiring a |reason= parameter to be supplied when used). Regards SoWhy 07:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It is helpful to place notices about specific problems rather than do nothing because you do not want to spend time writing detailed comments. I think the effect of this will usually e positive--anyone who wishes to replace a particular instance of it with a more specific template is welcome, but it would be even more useful if they simply did the necessary once they identified it. They're just stand-ins for what we really need in each case, which is the actual improvements or failing that empty section & expand section tags within the article.Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete It serves the same purpose as stub templates. Most WikiProjects have their own stub templates anyway which are subject specific. Editors don't want to go through 100,000 articles to find the subject of articles to their interest. Many (if not most) articles need expanding to some degree. As for articles which are not stubs that require expanding, there could be more subject-specific templates created. Andrewmc123 08:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So your point is "delete {{expand}} and create {{expand-history}}, {{expand-videogames}}, {{expand-politics}} etc. instead"? Why not keep this one and add a |category= parameter then (works for AFD-templates)? (as for why it does not serve the same purpose as stub-templates, see above). Regards SoWhy 08:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the |category= parameter is a very good idea. We have a similar system in place for {{Expert-subject}} (along with the non-project specific companion template {{Expert-article}}). Perhaps we could do something similar with {{Expand}}? It is also common to flag {{WPBannerMeta}} based project banners' |attention= parameter when using some of these templates, but not everyone knows how to do this. Perhaps that is a task well suited for a bot? --Tothwolf (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep The only way this template would continue to be a useful template would be if it had a |category= parameter added to it, otherwise delete. Changed opinion as per above comments Andrewmc123 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Is used to point editor's attention to articles that are in need of expansion more than other articles. Debresser (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Stub tags work much better than this template. Sadly, this TfD will end in no-consensus, as no admin has the backbone to delete it. Lugnuts (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stubs are not for the longer articles that use this template. I believe that this template is sadly overused and not rm'd when it probably oughta be. However, those are separate issues and insufficient reasons for deletion. There still remain articles and instances that require this template; therefore, it must not be deleted.
 —  Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX )  09:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I've used this template a few times and found it very useful when I come upon an article that needs to be expanded but don't have time, or the knowledge, to do so myself. I always use it with "|talksection=" which really should be mandatory when using this template. It's far less messy to use "{{Expand|talksection=}}" on an article that requires overall expansion than to use {{Expand section}} in each section where an article requires an overall expansion, which is usually the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It helped more than anythings on wiki. --Onef9day Talk! 13:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • What does that mean? Mhiji (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Edit the template so that it encourages anyone who sees it and cares to replace it with the more informative & specific templates {{expand-section}} and {{empty section}} in the appropriate places. Wareh (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - utterly pointless; no one ever does anything about it; nearly always misused; redundant to the fact that actually, you can always make something better; references to an inactive project and per any above deletion rationales that are relevant. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    Especially MickMacNee, whose points are very relevant. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 3[edit]
  • I was asked to weigh in. And although I think these tag templates are annoying but they serve their purposes. This one seems to serve it's purpose just fine so I am going to say Keep. − Jhenderson 777 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • keep many times this tag has yielded resutls as intentioned to get an expansion. UGly tags used to name and shame to improve the article. But alternatively {{expand section}} could be used instead of tagging h e whole article (Although that gets less prominence on big articels)(Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC));
  • Delete Almost all articles in Wikipedia could be expanded. Would we want this tag applied to every article on which it is appropriate? Clearly not. So now we have it indiscriminately strewn about on random articles. It does a poor job of attracting editors and rarely accomplishes "notification" about an article's flaws - length can be easily seen without the use of a tag like this, and expandability is normally apparent on the face of an article. The supposed benefits of this tag (and I doubt these benefits exist) are greatly outweighed by its unsightliness. Also per User:Ale_jrb. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Useless template with a huge backlog. Virtually all articles on Wikipedia should be expanded; we don't need a template to state the obvious. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 19:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that "Virtually all articles on Wikipedia should be expanded". Some definitely need expanding hence the need for this template. Some articles are complete. Others are adequate but can be expanded. Rather than deleting the template the backlog needs clearing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Every article needs to be expanded at one point so this template is unnecessary. This is something every user can do. WAYNESLAM 19:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The template should only be used on the articles that are in a serious need of expansion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It makes it more obvious that more information is needed. --AW (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The template helps to group articles that need to be expanded because there are more references and information needed to make the article encyclopedic. Nascar1996 20:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep You wouldn't believe how many people I have spoken to that don't realize a lot of Wikipedia articles aren't complete. The {{expand}} tag highlights specific non-stub articles that do not give a complete encyclopedic summary of the subject. There's a difference between an FA and Fat Face; both can be improved but a notice encourages any reader to pitch in. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If there are lots of users who don't realise that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that anyone can edit it (I'm pretty sure at least 99%+ of people are aware of this), this template isn't the solution. There's already all of the other cleanup templates dotted all over the place, which quite clearly show that the articles are not all complete and have issues (even if you only browse a few articles, your likely to come across a couple of them which immediately tells the reader that the site is incomplete and that they can edit it). There's also a very clear link to Wikipedia:Introduction on the main page. If it is an issue, we should instead be putting a big banner/disclaimer on the site saying this encyclopedia is not complete, and you can edit it (this doesn't really seem necessary, since everyone's aware of it). Or alternatively we should get a bot to add this template to every article which isn't a FA... I'm sure you'll agree both of these ideas are ridiculous - and that's basically all this template is doing. Saying that this template highlights individual articles which are in particular need of editing is ridiculous. There's no consistency at all - some articles which have this template on don't really need much work. Whereas there's thousands (probably millions actually) of articles which need lots of work which don't have the template. There's currently 18223 transclusions of it - there's probably another 3 million articles it could be added to... Should we be adding it to those one's too?! Mhiji (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You overestimate the intelligence of many of our readers. Or their willingness to click random links to read an introduction. If an article with this template doesn't need expanding, remove the template. If an non-stub article without the template needs significant expanding, add the template! That doesn't mean delete the template. Facepalm. Actually, I believe we are going to run banners soon after the fundraiser encouraging people to edit articles and stuff. I don't agree that those ideas are ridiculous, no. So maybe it's just you who thinks that we need to do less to encourage users to edit? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per MuZemike. AaronY (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Question to everyone who has said keep, per Mr. Z-man, is there any evidence that articles with this tag get expanded faster than those that don't? If there is any at all, I for one (and I'm sure many others) would change my position to keep. The main reason given for keeping the template is that it is effective at making articles expand quicker than they would without it. But is it? If we can't ascertain that it increases productivity (what it's intended to do), it should be deleted. Mhiji (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Most rationales for deletion are either based on misuse of the template (which is not a problem with the template but with the people using it), misjudgments regarding its purpose (because it is not meant for any article needing expansion, which is probably most of those we have, but only those which are missing vital information about the subject and thus fails to fulfill its encyclopedic purpose in this area) or problems with the template's wording or categorization (both of which can be addressed through editing). If the template is used correctly as intended (i.e. with explanations what is missing, only on specific articles, etc.), it will probably be helpful to increase productivity. If the template is used incorrectly, as many claim above (and thus !voted "delete"), then the usage should be changed, not the template. For example we could run a bot to remove the template from any article without a talk page and where the template was placed without an explaining edit-summary ("drive-by tagging"). But those are ideas (just like the proposed |category= or |reason= parameters above) that can be discussed on its talk page but which also show that deletion is not required. Regards SoWhy 23:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be this odd notion among some who have called for deletion of this template regarding this template's "effectiveness." If this were an appropriate criteria for deletion, then you could probably apply it to other templates. I've seen dozens of articles tagged with templates from years ago - general cleanup tags, reference tags, you name it. Does this mean they should all be deleted? No, and neither should this template. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, templates that are never effective should be deleted. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Yet I should ask what would be done with efficency should the articles that do make proper use of {{expand}}? ForgottenHistory (talk)
  • Weak delete - Stub templates and section expand seem pretty much cover the potential function nationality of this template, but on the other hand I don't think keeping it will cause much harm, and a lot of people seem to pretty vocal about keeping it. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Evilgohan provided an excellent rationale. There are medium-length articles which are as complete as needs be; there are other medium-length articles that need expansion to provide a proper overview of the subject. The latter are not stubs. If the problem is just with a particular section, then "expand section" tags are a solution; but if the problem is lack of detail all-round, then "expand article" is a better tag. What we really need is some way to tie up subject-expert editors with topical articles, probably via Wikiprojects. There are suggestions above for parameterising the "expand" tag in a similar way to how stub templates are broken down. I think that's probably unnecessary, we could instead seek an automated solution e.g. bot-created lists of articles within a Wikiproject that are tagged for expansion. At any rate, there are at least two different technical solutions that would make the "expand" tag more helpful for getting expert editors. I know the complaint is that it's not a useful tag, but it is certainly one that could become more useful to editors, and it already does serve up a warning to readers: Evilgohan is correct that some short pages are relatively complete and others aren't. The distinction may not be clear to a non-expert editor. If I saw a short-ish article about a star, I'd have no idea whether that page represents the sum total of encyclopedia-level human knowledge about it, or if it was written as a short synopsis from a news report about a recent discovery that could easily be tripled in length if an astronomer got their teeth into it. TheGrappler (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Time to stop all this chit-chat and get back to work!!!. I am working on Category:Articles to be expanded from January 2007. I am finding that a high percentage don't need the {{expand}} tag. Come on over and gimme a hand. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point. If people just did that, they would see that the problem is mainly with people misusing the tag rather than with the template itself. I just took a sample from those articles and in all of those articles the tag could either be removed as incorrect or replaced with a correct one. Regards SoWhy 10:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You both actually just made a very good point against the template. Considering the 100,000 backlog you are asking 100 volunteers to review 1,000 tagged articles each to only find that most of them are inappropriate. What's the point of such a gigantic exercise in bureaucracy? Is completely inefficient, much better to remove them all by bot. --Elekhh (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Generic tag, very widely used, serves many purposes. "Expand" is a common and obvious request anyone might have regarding any article. What wiki wouldn't have a template such as {{Expand}}??. The word itself is complementary. This and {{Cleanup}} are two generic templates that every wiki should have. And being generic is its virtue. -- œ 05:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I can find a million articles where this is applicable. Shannontalk contribs 06:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, all articles inherently need expansion to a lesser or larger degree. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, its just a pointless way of defacing wikipedia articles without getting blocked. MacStep (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - per TheGrappler's excellent summary, and others. In addition, a point (possibly) not yet made: it's a template which invites readers to become editors and we always need to encourage that. Of course other templates do this too, but most sound more technical even if the request isn't really technically that difficult, and so are less inviting to readers to become editors than this kind of generic, non-technical invitation to "expand" the article. The logic of this, the template being relatively brief, is to add a link eg to the Wikipedia:Introduction. Rd232 talk 11:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Expand. Needs to be bigger, clearly. thx. Tony May (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • What needs to be bigger? Mhiji (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or split into genre specific tags. Spidey104 15:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons given by OlEnglishGƒoleyFour← 16:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, its appearance in so many articles juts goes to show that it still has a role in editing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Plain useless without a parameter it provides no useful information to editors or readers. We could create a Template:Please edit for its friend. Convert all {{Expand|section}} to {{Expand section}} and delete. Vagueness is no use to anyone. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You do realize that your (probably valid) concerns can all be addressed by changing the template rather than deleting it? Regards SoWhy 18:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Misused template - every article on Wikipedia can be expanded. For short articles {{stub}} can be used! 61.8.139.218 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply: What about Start-C & some B-Class articles??? –pjoef (talkcontribs) 12:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Exactly, those are already tagged as such on the talk page, so no need to tag another million articles with this 'please add some text' template. --Elekhh (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
        • What about articles that are not part of an active project, and haven't been rated? Michaeloqu (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per TheGrappler, this template serves a particular category of articles, those which aren't stubs but need expansion to provide a basic overview, and those which are important and should be priorities for expansion. This has already come up several times, why does it need any more discussion? —innotata 20:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But if the tagger doesn't expand it himself, but just leaves the tag, it is evidently not important enough. Geschichte (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Overused and redundant (every article that in serious need of expansion should use 'stub' that also categorizes it). I find the template for sections ({{expand-section}} useful though. --Eleassar my talk 22:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Due to the canvassing I feel sorry for whatever admin puts their head on the chopping block to try and close this. Anyway, maintenance templates should only be used if it can be demonstrated that adding them leads to improvement of articles. I don't think this one does that in the vast majority of cases, as is stated just above it is both overused and redundant. It is so vague that it applies to almost any article that is not at least GA class. If one wants to find articles in the most desperate need of expansion there are hundreds of categories of stubs, which by definition need expansion. Rating by class on the talk page serves to further categorize articles needing expansion. This tag adds nothing of substance to these better, more specific classification systems. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. As TenPoundHammer puts it, "Any article that isn't FA-class is inherently need of expansion, so the template states the obvious." Guoguo12--Talk--  02:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It serves a good purpose and even if one in a hundred articles gets expanded this way, then its fine with me. Stub is ok but gets unnoticed as well. Expand gives better incentive even for non-registered users to add their input werldwayd (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "one in a hundred"? :-) This template is used on 100,000 articles. 1/100 of that is 1000. If you can give me a thousand examples (or even a hundred) of non-registered users usefully editing Wikipedia because of seeing this template, I will happily turn the most fervent supporter of this template. Without that, this is just wishful thinking unconnected with reality. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. To quote Beeblebrox near above, "maintenance templates should only be used if it can be demonstrated that adding them leads to improvement of articles" — and this template causes more distraction than improvement. There are already better, less reader-distracting ways for editors to see that an article needs expansion. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless and inferior to {{expand section}} and others. Categorizing articles by subject allows an editor to improve those articles in his field of interest, and maintenance templates serve to categorize articles that are in need of attention from a general class of editors (e.g. "is a stub," "needs copyediting," or "BLP needs sources"). Stub tagging is useful because any editor can find general information on the Internet and add at least minimal sourcing. {{Expand section}} is useful because it can serve as a way to "annotate" weak points in the article, allowing editors to describe what should go into the section. However, the nominated template does not have a useful purpose for two reasons. First, it is often necessary for an editor, who will locate articles via subject categories, to have specialized knowledge to locate better, more in-depth sources. (For example, Category:Articles to be expanded includes many sports-related articles, but I have no clue about that subject area. So I focus on Category:Astronomy, Category:Computer science, etc. instead.) Second, from a quick glance, it is obvious whether a given article is too short. (An article's size is self-evident, so it is unnecessary to put a big "needs expansion" box on it.) It makes much more sense to just use subject categories than to add articles to categories including 100k+ others. PleaseStand (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This template has an appropriate time and place, but we need to severely limit its use. Sticking it in any old stub isn't likely to do much good. Sticking it in an article that is missing a great deal of information, enough to give readers a less-than-acceptable picture, will i. warn readers that the article may be misleading or inaccurate due to missing information and ii. invite editors and readers to contribute data to expand the deficiency. Again, this is only appropriate for a small minority of articles; ones where multiple expand section templates would look ugly and ones that only contain one or two sections. ThemFromSpace 07:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it would help to add the space for a parameter, as for {{expandsection}}, where {{expandsection|iexamples}} yields "This section requires expansion with: examples. There are a great many useful specialized templates at Template messages/Cleanup, but I have never been able to remeber more than a small fraction of them. (see also the options at {{Template:Copy edit}} DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 4[edit]
  • Delete and replace instances with categorised stubs. Reubot (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least make into a talkpage template. This template has no business being transcluded in article space, and I remove it on sight. Content warning tags are for readers, not editors. Requests directed at editors belong on talk. Unbalanced articles are to be tagged with content warning tags such as {{undue}}, not by expansion requests. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep for two things: Firstly, I've recently notified another user about when to use an expand template (See here). Secondly, an article like this for example has the expand template with a suggestion on the talk page as well. I know this is probably the only purpose of the expand template, but expanding means bringing more information, and that's is what a good encyclopaedia is all about. Minimac (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Put it out of its misery, finally. Per my arguments in the past (summarizing: all articles on Wikipedia can and should be expanded, so it is totally redundant and as useful as a template saying: this article can be edited or this article is an encyclopedic article and so on). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete this has been so widely misused as to become pointless. Partly of course that is because it is redundant to the classification system. If people want the information kept then please just turn it into a hidden category. ϢereSpielChequers 15:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may be overused, but where used inappropriately (or where the reasoning behind using the tag is not obvious nor detailed on the talk page) it can simply be removed. For articles that are judged to have the potential to be significantly expanded it is still valid. I disagree that all articles should be expanded - there is a level of information and detail that is a appropriate for an encyclopedia, and only articles that have not reached that level should be expanded. --Michig (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, and piss off with your whinging. There has already been a discussion about this. The template is an invitation for people who may not otherwise edit to contribute. It's highly useful in getting more people into Wikipedia. I wish the tools who have started this pointless discussion would, with respect, piss off with their whinging. Wikidea 16:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong language notwithstanding, do you have any evidence that this template has actually got someone who wouldn't otherwise edit to contribute? (Even at a ratio of one in a thousand, i.e. a hundred times?) Contrary to your claim that it's "highly useful in getting more people into Wikipedia", all appearances suggest that it is, in fact, utterly useless. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Expand differs from other templates in it says nothing about the quality of the article, does not imply it is a stub or the likes, but suggests a wikipedia-wide contribution to the article in order to develop it. ForgottenHistory (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
  • Delete Per Garion and Calliopejen. There is little evidence to show that such a tag has any benefit. Over 90% of articles need expansion/sourcing. An Expand section at least draws the reader to know that the article is unbalanced. But we have stub tags asking people to expand short stubs so there is no need for this....♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant - who's actually expanded an article they otherwise wouldn't have because there is an "expand" tag. Sure, there may be some, but can you tell me it outweighs the ugliness of yet another tag slapped on the top of the page? Remember, we write for readers who are here now. We're not marking up a draft with comments for later release. --Merbabu (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant to the stub system. Looks like graffiti. –Moondyne 01:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You do realise User:Grutness (who I would argue is largely responsible for our well maintained stub system) didn't consider {{Expand}} redundant to the stub system?

    To quote User:Grutness from the 13 July 2007 TFD: "This template is incredibly useful - the trouble is it is misunderstood by many of the people using it. The expand template is used - or at least should be used - only on articles which are no longer stubs but which require major expansion, especially in those cases where expansion is specifically requested 9such as cases where having a small article shows a distinct hole in WP's coverage). The template is in regular use, especially by WikiProject Stub sorting, for those articles which clearly can no longer be described as stubs. Replacing the expand template with stub templates would drastically change the definitions used of what a stub is and greatly increase the workload on WP:WSS. emoving it without replacement would remove the opportunity to signal that an article that is beyond stub size ig genuinely in need of urgent serious work. if anything, the template closer in spirit to {{sectstub}} than to stub itself, yet there are cases where sectstub is not an appropriate template to use. The main problem with it is that many editors don't realise that it should not be used on stub articles (that's what stub templates are for). And that is a problem of educating editors, not a problem with the template. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)" [3]

    These comments from User:Grutness are also worth reading if you are going to attempt to argue redundancy: [4] [5] --Tothwolf (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've been reading these comments for and against until my brain hurts, and there are far more logical arguments toward deletion than keeping. Many of those who want to keep it seem to be ranting more than presenting a logical and rational case. I've seen this template used in articles that looked reasonably complete to me, and in articles that are wanting, isn't it obvious they need to be expanded? If I see a two-sentence article, it needs expansion - I don't need an invite to do it. If I see a full page article with this notice in it (which I often do), it looks misplaced. And if someone has information to add to an article, whether it "needs" expansion or not, they will likely add to it if they feel brave enough, notice or no notice. I understand the sales pitch but given the popularity of Wikipedia I think it's outlived its usefulness. But if you decide to keep it, I agree with a couple of the arguments that it's overused and needs a lot more restriction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphonitron (talkcontribs) 03:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Sometimes the template does yield results. For example, Curt Schilling. The template in the Arizona Diamondbacks secion propmted me to expand the section. Otherwise, I would've just moved on. However, this is just my case. Another example would be List of companies by revenue. Jonathansuh (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete It is like those "coming soon" signs on web pages or the image place holders, we don't need internal things to distract the reader, expansion from a stub is self evident. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete As almost all articles need expansion this tag is so general it can't be removed unless you make the article an FA (and even those can be expanded). It therefor goes against the principles outlined in WP:NODISCLAIMERS that such tags should be temporary and point to specific deficiencies in articles, instead of being a general disclaimer "This article is not yet perfect". Yoenit (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I do believe expand says more than just "THis article is open for expansion", it shows a deficincy of information as a characteristic in some new articles that lack the quality concerns to go under stub --ForgottenHistory (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
But in practice it doesn't. Templates such as {{Expand section}} and {{Expand further}} do that, telling the reader specifically what is wrong with the article so would be exceptions to WP:NODISCLAIMERS, but, {{Expand}} is just a general disclaimer saying "This article is not as full or comprehensive as it could be" so shouldn't be there. There's already a link to Wikipedia:General disclaimer at the bottom of every page, which tells the reader that the information in the article may not be "complete, accurate or reliable" - we don't need this template for that purpose as well. Mhiji (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very generic template which could be applied to just about anything. So how do we define what it should be used on? Not stubs, because they're already tagged. Not section expansions, which use the far more helpful {{expand section}}. Not articles where a few specific pieces of important information is missing - that would be {{missing information}}. So we're left with articles that aren't quite stubs where lots of sections need more info but where the tagger isn't quite sure exactly what's missing. Add in that it basically says nothing, and is about five times the size of the more important and less generic stub tags, and it really doesn't help the encyclopedia much. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ever since I first saw this template in 2004, I could not understand why it exists. There is not a single article in Wikipedia which can't (or shouldn't) be expanded; the template states the obvious beyond the most obvious. If one is itching to see any one particular article being expanded (and can't expand it herself), there are better ways of going about it than slapping a generic template at the top (or wherever).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2010; 15:29 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. While some articles are complete since the beginning, other articles just need some more contents than the ones that are presented, and may even become in risk of being deleted just for lack of contents and not for lack of importance. The template helps to prevent these situations and to connect poor articles with those who can actually improve them and often aren't aware of their existence. Harry Tudor (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "The template helps to prevent these situations" — er, how? There has never been an article that wasn't deleted just because it had a huge "expand" template stuck in it, and the idea that this template really "connects poor articles with those who can actually improve them" is extremely unfounded. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. A most useful and helpful template. Encyclopedic value, would be inappropriate to do away with a template of this nature. -- Cirt (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • How is this template useful or helpful? Why would it be "inappropriate to do away with a template of this nature"? Mhiji (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm very confused, how would the template have "encyclopedic value" ? --Elekhh (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: have long thought thus but hadn't seen it up for debate before. Agree with the above that it's needlessly meta: everything needs to be expanded in some shape or form. If it's grievously short we have highly specific stubs. If it's not grievous, so basically of a serviceable length, then it can be "expanded" as interested parties come across it. As it currently stands I don't envision many people scanning a massive list and saying "Oh, hey, I know a lot about 14th century Yemeni ceramics! I should expand that!". Likewise, if someone interested notices an article is short-ish, I doubt an "expand" prompt will play a role in their deciding whether to weigh in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It helps alot. No reason to delete it. Portillo (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • How does it help? Mhiji (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
      • For example, sometimes ill put a "Reception" section in a movie or album article and then ill put an expand tag. Its basically there so that someone can add the relevant information. Portillo (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        • That's what {{expand-section}} is for. Shreevatsa (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I thought thats what this discussion was about. I must be mistaken. Portillo (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment to the discussion generally, but with some emphasis on User:Mhiji specifically. What is the point of asking each individual to expand their reasoning when very plainly this discussion is heading, once again, for a No Consensus. Plainly it will continue to reach a No consensus conclusion. Reopening this discussion for the third time this year is itself as much an exercise in pointless futility as the template itself is claimed to be. Instead of arguing over the template's uselessness, why not refine the places where it actually has been used, replace with expandsection where appropriate, delete the template where it has been drive-by added and the edittor who has added has done no work to add themselves. All the time wasted in discussing this could be spent actively doing what the template itself addresses. Suggest the discussion be closed as No consensus immediately and action commence alternative action on curing the problem as detailed above. --Falcadore (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment to the discussion to agree with Falcadore (talk that the probable result will be No Consensus and we should leave it at that. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment A different idea, could we have a 'bot written to look at every article tagged EXPAND more than two years ago, and see if it grew more than 10% or some other percent, and then remove the EXPAND tag? Maybe that would reduce the very substantial number of tagged articles, with the justification that the article has been expanded. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 5[edit]
  • Delete. Im of the opinion other templates, perhaps yet to be created can take over-and do better its function. Deletion should not be inmediate but follow a template replacement plan. Dentren | Talk 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely useless and an eyesore. WereWolf (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. 99,5% of all our articles need to or can be expanded, and thus someone will eventually feel compelled to add the template to one of these articles, regardless of whether that's the actual intention of the template or not. People see the template being used everywhere, they start using it everywhere else. They don't bother reading the documentation, they don't bother to stop and think what the purpose of the template might be, and how it might help build a better encylopedia. They see it, they use it. It's as simple as that. To say that the template should be kept because, in an ideal world, it would only be used where it needs to be used is naive. Unless we radically change how the template works, that's just not going to happen. Ever. One way of solving the problem would be to monitor the use of the template. Remove it wherever it's not supposed to be, educate users about its use, go through the 100.000 article backlog. But who the hell is going through 100.000 articles to see if the template is used properly or not? It would be nice if that would work out, but it's simply way too much to be a realistic goal. It's not going to happen. The only way I see to save this template is to require a talk page explanation of why the tag is needed (or, alternatively, a "reason="-tag to be filled by the user). If that's not going to happen, nothing will change, and the template will continue to be as useless as it is right now. --Conti| 08:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleting stuff because it's misused is not really a good idea. It would create a precedent that in order to get rid of something, one would just have to misuse it a lot (in this case, to get rid of this template, just use it indiscriminately and it will be deleted). That can't be a viable idea and I think if one were to do so, they'd be sanctioned for it - and justifiably so.
But, as has been pointed out above, such problems can be addressed without deletion. With consensus, we can require that it is only added with an explanation and then have a bot remove it from all articles were no explanation exists. I think most people here agree that the template should be changed if kept and I think we can do so. But the first requirement to change it later, is to keep it now. You say yourself that there is a way this can work with changes (and I agree with you that those changes are necessary!), so imho you should consider changing your !vote to "conditional keep". Because changes are impossible without the template existing in the first place. Regards SoWhy 08:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This isn't an actual vote, so it doesn't really matter whether my bolded statement reads "delete" or "conditional keep". If the closing admin will decide to require what I suggested, I'll be fine with it. If he decides to have the template deleted, I'll be fine with that, too. But I do see a problem with the decision of "Keep now, discuss changes somewhere else", because in many cases that ultimately means that nothing will actually change. Once the TfD is over, the vast majority of users will lose interest in this discussion, and gaining a consensus to radically change the template will become next to impossible (And yes, I do hope I'm too pessimistic here). We're having a discussion right now, so why not use it to achieve a goal that can be more complex than "Delete" or "Keep"?
And deleting stuff because it's misused isn't always the best thing to do, but sometimes it's the only sensible thing left to do. Remember the spoiler templates? That was a reasonable idea, and if used properly would have made a lot of sense, even today. But eventually we had spoiler templates on Hamlet, and the whole thing got so over-the-top silly that the spoiler templates were deleted altogether. In an ideal world, the usage of the spoiler templates would have been reduced to a sane level again, but at some point it's simply not worth the effort. I see a similar situation here. If we get a bot to remove the 90.000 or so templates that have no talk page explanation included, by all means, let's do that. But will this actually happen if this discussion will be closed as "Keep, discuss details elsewhere"? I very much doubt it, to be honest. --Conti| 10:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
{{spoiler}} is a bad example, since the reason for its removal was not overuse but rather the fact that an encyclopedia is by definition a source of spoilers and thus the template was incompatible with the project's nature. As for this template, I created some testcases (see below) and if this template is kept, I will try to get consensus to implement both such changes and a bot to remove it from articles where its used incorrectly. You may {{trout}} me if I forget. Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 10:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Template:Future would be another example, deleted after a long discussion (started by me, incidentally), largely for the same reasons. I fully support your idea below, though. Personally, I would create a new template (Template:Expand because or something) and delete this one. But as long as the work's getting done, I'm all for it. --Conti| 10:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I considered the idea of a new template but that has two huge disadvantages: 1) It would mean that this template is removed even from those articles where the new template would be placed legitimately, thus rendering the work of users useless who knew how to use the template and 2) it would mean a bigger workload because then we'd need a bot to remove the template and then we would have to re-add it again for no additional benefit. Also, it would be counter-productive to replace an easy name for a template with a more complicated one, because sooner or later it means that one will be redirected to the other (like {{prod}} to {{proposed deletion}}) anyway. So you could just change the template itself. On a side note, if a proposal like my testcase below is implemented, we could wait a week or two before starting a bot-removal, allowing people to see the red warning and supply reasons, thus potentially making some of the current taggings useful (and still removing the rest afterwards). Regards SoWhy 11:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the workload of individually judging whether the template should be removed or not (how is a bot going to find corresponding talk pages discussions? They can have any title, could have been archived, deleted, hidden...) is far greater than readding the template when it is really warranted, assuming that the large majority of the near 100.000 uses is not warranted. Of course you're right that the template would eventually be called "Expand" again, but a precise naming would at least immediately make its purpose more obvious (again, the same problem as with the "spoiler" and the "future" templates). Waiting for a week (or more) before any kind of bot-removal sounds like a good idea to me. I remain pessimistic about finding consensus for this in the first place, but I'll be happily proven wrong. --Conti| 11:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Technically, it would be easy enough to change the template so that it produces no output if the reason= parameter isn't filled. That would be a pretty drastic step, but it would address most of the misuse concerns. There's also plenty of less drastic things which can be done to address those concerns, eg a bot identify pages with the template on for more than 2 years and/or with large expansion since being added, and dropping a note on the talk pages to suggest removal or adding a reason parameter. Rd232 talk 09:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: I created a testcase with updated wording and such checks at User:SoWhy/expand. See here: User:SoWhy/sandbox. Regards SoWhy 10:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this is rather a neat solution to the issue - lets us keep the template (which I do believe has a valid place in Wikipedia, both to "attract" editors willing to fix the problem and as a signal to our readers to be critical about what they're reading) while forcefully discouraging misuse. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • KEEP ~ This template and {{Expand section}} are the most useful templates on Wikipedia. Also, I think that it is not possible to reopen this discussion again and again and again and again.... Now, there are 19893 articles showing "‹ The template below (Expand) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›" and a beeping horizontal rule..., and you know that it ain't no good. KEEP AND SPEEDY CLOSE!!!pjoef (talkcontribs) 12:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, if you think that the tiny message and the horizontal rule are distracting, you should see the huge distracting template. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete the only real use is to make it clear to new users that expansion of the article is welcome. But that leads to the notion that the expansion of other articles isn't. I think it's a net loss. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Only conveys obvious, redundant information. Shii (tock) 15:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be useful know whether articles that have the template are more likely to be expanded than ones that do not. That should not be difficult to determine.
    • Select at random 1,000 articles that had the template 2 years ago (they may not have it now, if they have been expanded)
    • Select at random another 1,000 articles that have been around for 2 years or more and have never had the template
    • For each set, calculate the average % increase in size over the last two years
If the templated articles have grown significantly faster than the untemplated articles, keep the template. If not, scrap it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Serves no purpose and simply states the obvious. No one takes any notice of it and why should they?--EchetusXe 19:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Articles can be bigger than a stub and still need expansion over the whole article. Some topics are huge. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Some articles and their subsections may look sufficiently sized but when one reads the actual content, it is evident to be lacking parts. As I stated in the prior discussion, the Mortal Kombat#Development sub-section is small for an series article of its magnitude. I am a primary editor working on it and should be expanding it but I have not simply had the time. It only covers the development of the first title and a blurb about its switch to 3D. No one outside of an editor like myself actively working on it would notice the need of information. Another article is the Dante (Devil May Cry) article which is sorely lacking information about the character albeit being good(like the "Other Appearances" subsection which doesn't even note about how the developers came to choose Dante for the Marvel vs. Capcom series). The expand template tells readers and editors that they can provide some semblance of assistance with working on an article. The Expand template is the red flag which grabs the attention. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    And yet on that Dante article, the tag has been in place for 16 months. That's not a very efficient 'red flag' to editors or readers on an article with 900! page views a day. Although this may be down to the fact there is nothing on the talk page to help anyone figure out why that tag is there, especially as it is a GA, which requires no obvious gaps in coverage. So really, what is it about this intrusive and apparently completely inneffective tag in this case, that yields results better than say, a request to the Video Games project? Or any of the other more targetted and efficient ways of requesting assistance? MickMacNee (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    Look, a tag that is "intrusive" is designed to be effective. At that point, the responsibility should be shifted from the tag to the readers. Or, increase the intrusiveness of the tag until the readers give in. Readers certainly will do nothing if it's not intrusive. So we are faced with a situation where, if a tag does not lead to a cleanup, the only logical option is to make it more intrusive. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    How about we just blank the page and just leave the tag, until it's improved? That's pretty damn intrusive. This whole idea that tags are there to ruin the pedia to force people to fix it, is just bizarre. This is a voluntary project. Nobody is forced to do anything, that whole mindset is wrong. And as many people have already said in here, it isn't even working!. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    While I understand your rhetorical point, I disagree with it. Blanking the page is not on the same level as attaching "look at me!" templates. Blanking the page removes the flawed content, meaning there would be nothing to work with. Attaching "look at me!" templates tells people to help improve the flawed material. Plus keep in mind that this particular debate concerns a template where the purpose is to ask the user to add more content. Blanking the page would be counter-productive to that. Attaching "look at me!" templates would not be counter-productive.
    "Nobody is forced to do anything, that whole mindset is wrong." - While nobody is forced to do anything (we can't make a law saying "Joe Q. Public must edit Wikipedia 3 hours a day") - We sure can goad people into editing Wikipedia. We sure can encourage people to do so.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete {{expand section}} is good enough. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: In this case, ask that the templates be merged. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Please please please delete this template. It serves no earthly purpose other than indicating that the editor placing the template can't think of any constructive criticism. Template over-use and the user of overly broad templates are problems on wikipedia. We ought to be sure that when we tag an article, the tag handles a real problem ("I think this article ought to be bigger" isn't a real problem) and provides a conduit to solve that problem. Templates which do neither of those things contribute to readers ignoring them--as they should! Also, if you don't believe people when they say that templates are ignored, talk to friends or family about articles they read on wikipedia and ask them (even for recently read articles) what template messages were at the top of the article or the section. I'll bet dollars to donuts the answer is "I don't know" or "I didn't look", even if the page is tarted up with a dozen pointless templates. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I needed a template to let people know that Liberal education was in need of further expansion and to ask interested contributors to help me, so I used this one. It still has a purpose! Edge3 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    It's not a magic tag. You just finding it and placing it on the article does nothing - it's not a replacement for you actively seeking help if that's why you placed it, and it doesn't help in passive improvement efforts either, as you haven't even left a note explaining what's missing from the article. The chances of a wandering expert in liberal education knowing instinctively why you placed it there are no highrer than one just looking the article up themselves, reading it, spotting a deficiency, and fixing it. In that whole process, the tag is nothing more than a useless distraction for the ordinary reader. MickMacNee (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Its indiscriminate use does not help setting priorities for improvement. Excluding stubs still leaves 1.5 million articles within its scope, and it is not clear what distinguishes the 100K so far tagged from the other hundreds of thousands. Its use without clear specification of what needs to be expanded, is also useless. Not any addition of text is an improvement. Simply asking for more text to be added does not make articles better. If an article lacks vital information more informative tags should be used, such as Unbalanced or Expand section. --Elekhh (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete for the following reasons:
    • All articles need expansion
    • We have {{-stub}} templates for stubs
    • We have {{expand section}} for sections
    • We have {{expand German}}, etc. that give much more specific instructions of how to expand
    • We have {{Refimprove}} for expanding references sections, {{lead too short}} for lead section and probably more.
    • Deleting expand doesn't imply that we delete the other templates (which are really useful)
    • It's not clear at which point the page was expanded. I can guess it for a section comparing to the rest sections but for the whole page?
    • There is no evidence that the template really helps specific pages to expand faster than others. WikiProjects' priority scales have proven more efficient on that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I did a quick sample, and found that articles with the template expanded by 27% on average over 2 years, while articles without the template expanded by 34% over the same period. This suggests that the template discourages expansion. But the sample was too small to be statistically significant. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • An explanation for the effect could be that the articles with the "expand" template cannot easily be expanded, while the articles without the template have more natural potential to expand. The "expand" template may be used by editors to say "I can't find any more sourced content - maybe someone else can", while lack of the template may indicate confidence that the article will be expanded anyway. This is speculation on a very small data sample. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Smile.gif Of course the template discourages expansion. Everybody knows that. Nonetheless, the template is here to stay. It doesn't matter if it looks and feels like a barking dog at a door to a house. Because its main purpose is to let others know that the article is on his watchlist. — Fixatif (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Confused-tpvgames.gif My sample was just five articles with and five without, checked manually. That is much too small to draw any real conclusion. It deserves a decent statistical analysis on several thousand articles, then some thought about what the results mean, which could lead to further analysis. I don't have the tools or the energy to do it. But without facts, this discussion is a bit pointless. "I think it works". "I disagree". We need facts.
Another bit of information that would interest me is article size and rate of expansion compared to the number of Google hits on the article title. Completely meaningless for an individual article, but perhaps indicative for a set of articles, e.g. "articles with 1,000 - 5,000 ghits expand on average by 15% in their third year, or 12% if they have the template, while articles with <100 ghits expand on average at 33% in their third year, or 40% if they have the template". I am making up these numbers, but they would certainly be interesting in understanding the real impact of the template. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I haven't read any comments above (TLDR) but I saw the TFD message. In my opinion the template is essentially meaningless – almost every article that isn't an FA should be expanded in some way or another. For extremely short articles we have stub tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This template clearly still serves a purpose. There are non-stubs that still need significant expansion. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete preferably with fire. This Captain Obvious template is one of the most overused redundant tags on WP. Ranks right up there with the generic "Clean up" tag. Brad (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone knows how, has necessary information and sources, sees the article, feels the article needs it, and feels like it, they will be expanding an article. Calling attention to whether others feels that an article needs expansion isn't going to change that. If you don't satisfy those criteria, then this isn't going to change anything either. (And I don't think that people will be looking through massive lists of tagged articles which they most likely know nothing about.) Doggitydogs (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    But an unobtrisive tag is of special benefit to those who are less experienced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Either delete or require explanation of some sort. As it is now, it's just too generic. If people were required to explain, e.g. "this article is missing a whole section on the important period 1842-1897", or "four consecutive sections describing some issues are comparatively short" that would be at least remotely useful, and we could remove obsolete expansion requests more easily. The current application of the template as a whole is becoming increasingly useless and is a pointless drain on editor time without being comparatively more helpful to readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Which is why I quite prefer the {{expand|section}}... which points to just where work may need doing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
        • That use case is effectively a synonym for {{expand section}} so that is not that much of a problem in general, it can stay as is. The problem of completely generic tagging is what needs to be addressed to make at least a modest improvement over the status quo. I've listed a possible use case for preferring one tag over multiple per-section tags - multiple missing or short consecutive sections. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • For example, wrap it into one of those conditional constructs:
      {{#if:{{{concern|}}}| ... existing template plus {{{concern}}} inside ... | <!-- otherwise just --> [[Category:Generic expansion requests (from month/year)]] <!-- and nothing else -->}}
      --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment For what it is worth, I did a comparison of a slightly larger sample of tagged and untagged articles. Details are at User:Aymatth2/Expandstats. Results from comparing 27 of each type (very small samples) were:
    • For the tagged articles, average expansion in 2010 was 12.17%
    • For the untagged articles, average expansion in 2010 was 17.45%
These results should not be taken as significant. A much more scientific comparison is needed to find the real effect of tagging. That should be done and results discussed before making any decision on this template. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. States the obvious. Any qualified Wikipedian seeing a lacking article should feel compelled to improve it, whether or not the template is there. --Bateau (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    Ah... but the template is of great service to those who are new to Wikipedia. Not everyone has thousands of edits. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    Neither readers uninterested in becoming editors, or veteran and experienced editors, should have to put up with this hideous and obtrusive tag, just because novice editors cannot find their way to the Wikipedia:Introduction, or to one of the many better places where they can find out which articles need what work doing to them. MickMacNee (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to say that that's not the best attitude for a project which depends on making it easy to attract new editors. If you or other experienced editors don't like seeing the template, we can simply put it in a div-container with an ID and you add something like #expand { display: none; } to your skin.css file. That way you won't see it anymore and it can still be helpful to others who might feel encouraged to add information because of the template. Or, to put it another way, deleting stuff because you think it's "hideous and obtrusive" is not a good attitude, when there are alternatives that serve the same purpose. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, that's exactly the same thinking behind Wikipedia:PEREN#Move maintenance tags to talk pages, which was always rejected for similar reasons: That the whole point of those templates is to be visible for readers (= potential editors). Regards SoWhy 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Even assuming I wanted to go out of my way to change my configuration to suit the people who like this pointless obtrusion, which I don't, this still doesn't help readers who have to suffer it. If you re-read, I was also speaking for them, because I am not that self absorbed that I can think in terms of 'if it doesn't affect me, I don't mind'. 99% of readers will never become editors, whatever inducements you plaster on the article space, that's just a fact. And new editors will be the least able to expand articles in need of it, that's also just a fact. Pretending that this tag's main purpose is to attract new editors is just that, a pretence. Better alternatives exist to do that, just like better alternatives exist to getting real help to articles needing expansion. MickMacNee (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as stating the obvious. Ironholds (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Make bigger (expand) per Tony May. Mono (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • He didn't explain that statement... Do you think that the expansion of the template needs be in form of stating the reason for the tag, like I said? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It was a joke... MonoALT (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It goes without saying that a stub needs expansion, and the stub template is the correct one to apply. Once a stub has been expanded enough to be Start class, it could still be capable of further substantial expansion, which is where the {{expand}} should be used. As has been said above, all articles could be expanded, but once an article has made B class, there is no need to have an expand template, as it is less likely that the article could be substantially expanded. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This template serves a valuable purpose and simply needs correct use. While {{expand}} might look a bit glaring across the top of an entire article (its needs to be bit less ugly), I find the unobtrusive {{expand|section}} to be of tremendous value in instructing newer editors just where they should concentrate their efforts in article improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The exact same function is performed by {{expand section}}, so this is a not a valid argument for keeping {{expand}} as already explained above. Yoenit (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This template isn't terribly useful in the context of looking at the list of pages with Expand templates and going through expanding them, I agree. But it's great as a heads-up to anyone browsing through it, which could well motivate them to give the page some care. I don't agree that it's implied that you should expand a page--rather, it often feels like it would be best to leave well enough alone. This template helps let casual (yet perhaps quite knowledgeable!) users know it's a good idea to expand the article if they have relevant info. --Jtle515 (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    We are primarily an encyclopoedia for readers, not editors. The front of our articles are not motivational noticeboards to attract potential editors. Fixing vandalism and typos is probably how most readers become editors, but I don't think anyone is suggesting we have to have a 'this article contains spelling errors' tag. Our core slogan is Wikipedia - the encyclopoedia anyone can edit. Not that it is even a requirement to be an expert to expand any article, but if a potential 'expert' reader cannot pick up on the subtleties of that message without this hideous blue in their face reminder aswell, maybe they aren't such an expert after all? MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • As another user said above, we are an encyclopedia that needs to entice readers to become editors. Having the tags that say "hey! this article has a problem and needs to be fixed" help encourage readers to become editors. It also tells readers to be skeptical of some articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
      • We are an encyclopoedia for readers, full stop. Anyone who thinks that tagging articles like Christmas trees is how we get readers to become editors, has misunderstood the whole point of Wikipedia. Tagging for warning, is justifiable, as that does indicate something needs fixing. This tag is not that. We entice most readers here on the fundemental principles of open editting, and nothing more. Typo fixing drafts more people than this tag, I guarantee. On your model, if every article that was ever published was an instand FA, thereby not needing any tagging, we'd have no editors. Patently false. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
        • "Tagging for warning, is justifiable, as that does indicate something needs fixing. This tag is not that." - Gaps in coverage are things that need "fixing."
          "On your model, if every article that was ever published was an instand FA, thereby not needing any tagging, we'd have no editors. Patently false." - But we don't have instant FAs. That is not possible. In practice most articles need help, but the particular help should be specified so that readers know what direction they need to go.
          "We entice most readers here on the fundemental principles of open editting, and nothing more." - As SoWhy said, the suggestion to move tags to talk pages so they wouldn't be intrusive has been rejected over and over again. Practice on Wikipedia states that we want to entice people to edit based on the tags. Also, editors do set up internal Wikipedia ads to promote particular Wikiprojects to promote editing in those areas, even though they don't display in the article space.
          WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 6[edit]
  • Delete. This is one template that I have many times thought about that it is completely redundant in that it states the obvious (although I have not participated in any previous TfD discussion). We could equally well add a template to all Stub-, Start-, C- and B-class articles saying "Please improve this article". __meco (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete States the bleeding obvious. —Felix the Cassowary 12:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete stub templates cover the cases where expansion is really needed, other than that the only time that a notice should be required is on sections that particularly need content to be added. As many others above have said almost all articles could do with expansion so this template is not needed and is badly overused currently. Davewild (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Cassowary, I like {{expand-section}}, as it highlights a specific problem. Further information is virtualy never found on the talk page, and stub templates do a better job for some articles. Acather96 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Wikipedia skin. Adding this template and other warning templates to an article is a way in which an editor can express an opinion about the article, but their opinion may not reflect the majority view. The skin should be changed so that all articles have a small box showing recent user ratings plus a "Rate it!" button. If a user clicks on the "Rate it!" button, they can answer a short questionnaire,
Do you think this article is:
  • Too short? Too long? Just right?
  • Easy to follow? Hard to follow? Good enough?
  • Neutral? A bit biased? Very biased?
  • etc....
This would provide genuinely useful information on which articles most need attention, provided by the people who really count. When the change is implemented, presence of this template will count as one vote for "too short". Aymatth2 (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This template is useful for articles that are not stubs, but are still in need of expansion. Immunize Contact Me Contributions 16:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment For all the people who think this trinket is super-usefull just like the stub tag, but for articles that are not stubs, can you please explain why it is that stubs only need a small, unobtrusive note at the bottom of the page, yet these bigger articles that are not stubs, need an in your face obtrusive tag at the top? Are you people suggesting that the stub template should also be brightly coloured and go at the top of the article, or are you suggesting that this template could be made colourless, and moved to the bottom of the page? Or have none of you even noticed this inconsistency in how you seem to think we need to highlight a need for any kind of expansion on the front of the articles. MickMacNee (talk)
The thing is, is that it's obstructiveness is sometimes neccessary to incite action. Templates such as {{verify}} also are noticeable, but are neccessary. Expansion is another category that needs to suggest expansion in an article that needs expansion, whereas some stub articles are stubs because there is little information about the said subject.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Stubs are so short that it's clear for everyone reading that the article is too short. The stub-tag will always be displayed on any normal browser, thus it's okay that it's at the bottom. Stubs are "it's so short, it's obvious"-articles. The expand-template on the other hand is for articles where the lack of information may not be apparent on first glance because multiple sections exists etc. A tag at the bottom would not be visible at the first glance. As ForgottenHistory notes, the whole point of all maintenance templates is that they are obtrusive so that people are incited to do something against it (that's why the WP:PEREN suggestion to move them to the talk page has been rejected again and again). If you see a big maintenance-tag as a casual reader, you may be more likely to do something and as I experienced editor you (hopefully) find the tag so annoying that you see whether you can do something against the problem or at least check whether there actually is a problem. Btw, as I remarked above, if you personally find the tag too annoying to bear, there are easy ways to make it disappear for you without having to delete it for everyone else. Regards SoWhy 19:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
A verification tag indicates a serious problem, which justifies such in your face intrustion as a warning tag, whose primary purpose is to warn, not encouraging someone to fix it. Tagging it simply for not being as big as it could be, isn't even in the same league of trade-off of defacement vs. warning. And no, when I see that this tag has been slapped on an article, I am not motivated to expand the article at all, I just roll my eyes at having found yet another example of an editor not using the many other more efficient, targetted, and less obtrusive ways that they could have solicited my help, and I am instead more motivated to vote delete at oppportunites like this for the community to deservedly wipe it from existence. And of course in your scenario, you assumed the tagger has even bothered to leave a note saying what's wrong with the article. That's wishfull thinking usually - I learnt that in my first few months as an editor who felt competent enough to be able to attempt to 'fix' these articles where I encountered them, and naively went to investigate the issue. Pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
In the perspective that every article should get as close to being an FA as possible, having a very underdeveloped section is indeed a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Even good articles require that each section have a reasonable amount of content in it. "I am instead more motivated to vote delete at oppportunites like this for the community to deservedly wipe it from existence" - Spite is no good on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 And following on from above, could they also comment on this other aspect of these conditional super usefull type votes - if this tag really is needed and has proven to be helpfull for these not-stubs-but-not-above-B-class type articles (i.e. Start class-"quite incomplete", or C-class-"missing important content"), then what would you guys say to setting up a bot to tag all Start and C-class articles with this tag, and removing it where no such assessment has occured. That way at least, we would know someone has actually put some proper thought into whether this tag is required, because it is pretty indisputable that this tag is widely abused by n00bs who really have no idea that this narrow range is where it is intended to be used. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: this template appears to be too vague to give much in the way of useful guidance -- templates like {{missing information}} or {{expand section}} give more targeted advice. Assuming an article is not a FA, it is largely redundant to state that it needs expansion somewhere. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - I would suggest that you ask for the templates to be merged together in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment:The thing is it is not just a template that says 'this is open to edit, it is a template that strictly defines a scenario wherein an article or multiple sections in an article are in need of expansion, but do not imply quality deficiency such as with {{stub}}. I strongly urge editors to realize that this is not a case of an unnecessary template, but a case of a misused and misunderstood template.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • keep As stated above, "This template is useful for articles that are not stubs, but are still in need of expansion" I also agree that the list of backlog with this is large and we (editors) should work to help clear it were we can or remove it as limited information on that subject.Jsgoodrich (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • keep this is a useful template because it can be placed in sections of an article. This helps protect sections that need expanding from "improvers" who would otherwise merge sections in an unhelpful way.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But we have {{expand section}} for that purpose. If any instances of this template which are used on individual sections ({{expand|section}}) were converted to that template, would you have any objections to deleting this one? Mhiji (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as just being generally useless. If someone knows enough to properly place the tag (that an article or a section is missing substantive, sourcable information) then that editor knows enough to just expand tha article. The template is merely there to enable drive-by tagging rather than substantive improvement to an article. That situation is a net negative to the project. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You have to explain that to me. If I come across an article about some US college football team and I notice that it's incomplete, how am I able to fix it, if the sources don't exist online and I have not the slightest clue about it? Regards SoWhy 20:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • How do you know it's incomplete? You obviously know some kind of information that is missing, or else you wouldn't know it was missing. You learned/read/heard it somewhere, so a source must obviously exist. If you know the information, you should add it and improve the article. Adding a tag that tells nobody what you think is missing is not going to help. If you are so unsure about the information you think needs to be added, leave a note about it on the talk page. Unlike a talk page conversation, the tag does nothing to improve the article, and may well result in another editor expanding something for the sake of clearing the tag, while still not incorporating the information you believe is missing. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Because several sections are empty? Because the history starts at 1880 and ends at 1890 and then restarts at 1980? Because it says there are two teams but the article only talks about one of them? There are several situations where the lack of information is clear after reading the article without knowing what the information should be. As multiple people said above, the point (and the text!) of the template is to say "please see the talk page because there is stuff to be expanded". The problem is people not adding such reasoning but as said above, there are ways to avoid this, for example by requiring a reason to be specified before the tag works. Your objection seems to be based on the fact that it's too generic when explanations are missing and I agree with you on this. But those are concerns that can be addressed by changing the template's code instead (which I would try if this TFD does not result in "delete"). Regards SoWhy 20:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Then why not just direct the people to discuss their reasoning on the talk page in the first place without the tag? If getting rid of the tag, and the lazy way out, drives more of the information to the talk page, this is a "very good thing"™ for the project as a whole. Tags that disincentivize collaboration should be deleted in order to foster better communication. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The point of the tag is to address people who don't know what a talk page is. Yes, we want to encourage editors to use the talk page to discuss changes and expansions and similar content problems. But {{expand}} and other such templates serve to get people who are not yet involved in editing to start getting involved. If you just add it to the talk page, an experienced editor might notice it but a casual reader won't and the template is designed to encourage people to do so. It's useful for such purposes imho and concerns of "laziness" (also called "drive-by tagging") can be addressed by requiring such explanations to be made. Regards SoWhy 20:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If some sections are empty use {{Empty section}}, if sections need expansion use {{Expand section}}, if article is incomplete then use {{Incomplete}}. We have templates for everything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It might just be me but I think a single {{expand|reason=Sections X, Y and Z need more details, see talk page}} should be preferable to slapping a {{expand section}} tag to each section, e.g. in this case thrice. Btw, {{incomplete}} is just another variant of {{expand}} - it uses the same category and almost the same language. So that's not really a good argument to delete {{expand}} because the same argument could be made in favor of deleting {{incomplete}} (e.g. "Delete {{incomplete}} because {{expand}} does the same thing"). Regards SoWhy 22:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Tagging sections explicitly is more stable in section renaming. I agree that "Incomplete" has very bad wording but its name is much better than "expand" so I think we better work with "Incomplete" further than "Expand". -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative I'd love to see this template deleted because, although it has been a fixture of Wikipedia for a long time, the down side - the visual stain on often valuable articles - outweights the upside - pointing out the obvious to a reader and helping to prompt quality improvements. That said, I don't see this discussion ending in a consensus either way. Therefore I'd like to suggest two positive changes:

  1. Why should "expand" be more prominent than "stub" when it is a more developed articles? Reducing it down to a category and a smaller text (perhaps the size of {{cn}}) would be an improvement.
  2. Could someone more tech minded than me manage to change twinckle so its as easy to remove tags as it is to add them on? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep but modify slightly: the premise for deleting this template is faulty since it serves a valid and useful function: to alert those, including lay readers, that sections or the entire article should be further expanded, which is not obvious in many cases. For example, some topics have little, to very little source material that can be used for expansion, and since O.R. is forbidden, can not be expanded upon; however many articles have great amounts of secondary and tertiary source materials that are available for research in order to expand a section/article that may still be naisant -in that instance the tag is more than suitable. That said, I agree with the prior commenter above, AndrewRT, who points out the visual stain of the tag, common to most, if not all article and talk page tags. The tag graphics, for the most part, are pretty Mickey Mouse, and should be greatly simplified or deleted -the most objectionable one being the broom for the Cleanup tag. Some tags are excessively large as well. Some of the graphics, like the broom, are nothing more than visual clutter and highly sophomoric. If we'd like to give the encyclopedia a more professional appearance, getting rid of loud, immature graphics would be be a good place to invest our time. HarryZilber (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is obvious in nearly all cases where the template is used that the article can be expanded. Your example applies only to a very, very small set of articles where an explanation on the talk page would probably be necessary. --Conti| 15:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see why you want to delete it, but the template clearly serves a useful function to editors to find articles in great need of expansion, and can also inform readers that the article/section in question may not be as informative/complete as we would like it to be. Brambleclawx 16:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
How and by whom the "great need" is defined? Moreover, if you check the statistics above, there is no evidence that the tag really helps expanding some articles in comparison to others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You want to find articles in need of expansion? Click on the following: Special:Random. :-) --Conti| 16:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
But one would find plenty of articles that don't need expansion. Or articles that have all of their sections well rounded. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The only articles I've found so far that don't require any kind of expansion are disambiguation pages. Featured Articles would be the other article group that is, presumably, complete. Everything else can be expanded. --Conti| 19:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
On the Elvis Presley page I suggested content to add, and some users said "No, this article has too much detail. You could include this stuff in a stub article." - Look at FAs, and you will find that the articles don't need expansion. At a certain point an article will have enough content, and additional content would either be excluded, or included in a sub-article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I just said that FAs are an example of articles that usually don't need any expansion. That leaves us with a few million other articles that still can be expanded. --Conti| 20:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is redundant to a whole array of stub tags, and quite unnecessary as a result. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It is not possible to stub tag an article section. This tag (or a variant of it) is used a lot to indicate that particular sections need expansion. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
      • But {{expand section}} can be used for that. We are not discussing deleting that. Mhiji (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually some users want that deleted too, as they believe the concept is flawed. As I have said above, call for the templates to be merged, so that the same function is there. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
          • It's irrelevant if some users want that deleted too - again, this discussion about the {{Expand}} template, not {{Expand section}}. Also, do they? If you or anyone else think it should be deleted, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. Many people in this discussion, have stated that they think {{Expand section}} is useful because it is helpful to mark individual sections which are in specific need of improvement. All of the above comments about and votes for keeping this template because it is useful for marking individual sections (using {{Expand|section}}) for improvement aren't valid arguments to keep this template, since using that just invokes {{Expand section}}. Any instances which use {{Expand|section}} can be changed to use {{Expand section}} directly, so by deleting {{Expand}}, we wouldn't be losing the functionality to mark individual sections in need of expansion. Mhiji (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
            • It very much is relevant, because a discussion about one template can end up affecting the others with similar/the same functions. I.E. a discussion about "{{Expand}} template" can end up having an effect on, say "{{Expand section}}" - Results like that can happen, so you need to make your exact stance clear. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or Modify I find this template to be extremely vague. If an article needs expansion or improvement, this should be specified somewhere somehow as to what the nature of that expansion or improvement is. A somewhat different template is more useful for that. Tatterfly (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete We already have, inter alia, a stub template and section expand tag. This expand template is redundant. Furthermore, it is not at all specific: there will be a fairly clear consensus to those who know something of a subject when an article ceases to be a "stub", but it is purely subjective as to when an article no longer needs "expanding". Indeed, almost all articles could do with expanding, as there is usually additional relevant information that can be added. Instead, we should be making greater use of expand tags to request more information on specifics, rather than slapping on an expand template to an entire article that will, it appears, seldom be removed once applied. 188.126.85.47 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete because 1) every Wikipedia article can be expanded and 2) because this template's job is done by stub templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.210.228 (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Not every Wikipedia article can be expanded. Some can become too large. And also this template best works on particular sections; i.e. to mark which sections need to be expanded. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We need expands in different colors, as recently concluded by another RfC. Ergo, we need at least one! Tijfo098 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a tag challenging existing and would be editors to do more work on article, and a tag letting readers know article is incomplete and needs expansions. Hard to see how such clear communication on status of article, and needs of article, should be considered redundant. Bruceanthro (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Without wading through the vast points above too much, I spotted the bits about stubs, but stubs don't say in nice big letters for the layman "please expand this article". Lay readers don't look at stubs, and don't browse wikipedia stub categories. This template encourages people to contribute to Wikipedia, who might actually add some content, instead of constantly proposing ways to change and rewrite template and category structures. I see no reason to compare this template to stubs; they're entirely different; this one says "come on in" and "we need help on this article, there's lots of material waiting to be added", which is usually the case when it's placed. And something can be well past a stub and need expansion - doesn't anyone see that? Guess I better scan the above now, but strongly oppose the deletion of this, and to the nominator who labeleld it "obsolete" I say "sez who?" Tempaltes that help Wiikipedia grow, and invite participation, intead of bury energy in procedure in obscurity and page-formatting in a deepending sea of code - it's kinda funny to me, in fact, that this template which is about growth and addition of content would be proposed for deletion adn branded "obsolete".... really quite funny, if not kinda sad also.Skookum1 (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
So you suggest that we delete stub templates in favor of "expand"? The good thing with stubs is that are categorised. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other than for FAs and GAs perhaps, one can assume that the article needs to be expanded. This renders Template:Expand to be useless. Template:Expand section, on the other hand, shows specifically what needs to be expanded, so we can see what needs to be done to the article. MitchellDuce (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've never liked this template. It states something that is blindingly obvious (ie. that the article worthy of an expand tag is not comprehensive) and I kind of see it as an abdication of responsibility (ie. understanding and acknowledging the article is deficient but being unwilling to do anything about it). I also think the template is so general that it applies to nearly every article below GA-class. My opinion is that if you want to request an expansion, do so on the talkpage and specifically state what aspects needs expansion (a general statement that it needs general expansion isn't helping). maclean (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AustralianFootballbox collapsible[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:AustralianFootballbox collapsible (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Not only is it unused, it doesn't have any content other than headers so doesn't apear to have any useful purpose. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -- œ 06:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I've never seen a blank-looking template before, but anyway, agree with nom. Minimac (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused, and so unuseful. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems as if it would be better served to have a more inclusive template, concurring with other users about lack of use from logs. --ForgottenHistory (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ARSB[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete, but will be moved to a subpage of the ARS project or to userspace upon request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:ARSB (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. Has this navbar ever been in use? It does seem like it would be useful.. looks like it's part of some unfinished restructuring of WP:ARS? However it appears that the creator, User:Okip has retired. Maybe ARS could still have some use for this? -- œ 06:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't look like this is doing any good for anybody. It's for the ARS to use, and they don't appear to be using it. If they don't want it, I think it's safe to say Wikipedia will be ok without it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator although this template is not used, the design style can be replicated. Okip 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - unused, and doesn't seem very useful, since it's mostly red links. Robofish (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ARSH1a[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G7. Mhiji (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:ARSH1a (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH2a (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH3a (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH4a (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH5a (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH6a (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH7a (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH8a (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH1b (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH2b (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH3b (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH4b (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH5b (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH6b (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH7b (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSH8b (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSHRa (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:ARSHA (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. Ditto my comment above from #Template:ARSB. Does anyone at the ARS want to finish Okip's work and start using this set of templates? They apparently affect the ARS Hall of fame. -- œ 06:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete all These appear to be abandoned tests of some sort. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete all I am the creator. there is no point to these anymore. I am surprised I didn't request to have these delete myself. Okip 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CBB seasons row[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CBB seasons (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:CBB seasons row (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:CBB seasons conf (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:CBB seasons coach (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Indic names[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indic names (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox School Formal[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete after replacing transclusions with {{Infobox school}}. --RL0919 (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox School Formal (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Redundant to Template:Infobox school. Mhiji (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:In the news (main page)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:In the news (main page) (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Duplication of Template:In the news Mhiji (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete: I can't figure out what this template is for--it is a near copy of the original template cited in the nomination and hasn't been updated with actual news since 2006. The template has no unique use and is not transcluded on any pages that are currently active or of importance. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 04:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BugFixed[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep for now Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:BugFixed (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Fixed. Mhiji (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not used yet. I made it for Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs together with {{NewBug}} and some to come. While not yet implemented, there was an idea to have additional field, such as, |priority=. Can move to userspace/project subpage if mainspace is a problem. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep per hold your horses. It was created yesterday for the Article Alerts. We're rebooting the project after 8 or so months of inactivity and doing a complete overhaul, if it's unused once the dust has settled, we'll send it to deletion it ourselves. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep per headbomb --Guerillero | My Talk 03:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bot style[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G2. Mhiji (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bot style (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Substantial duplication of Main Page. Single use template - has been subst'd. No need to keep it. Mhiji (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I speedied it. Apparent test-page of user currently blocked for playing all sorts of testing games. DMacks (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Block-reason[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Mhiji (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Block-reason (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Redundant to other block templates. Mhiji (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep It's not going to show up because it is always substed, and it seems like a perfectly valid-to-use block template. That there are other block templates is irrelevent, this one is perfectly useful and so there is no reason to delete it. --Jayron32 17:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason for deletion; a variety of templates are needed, including non-specific ones. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I use it, so definitely not unused. Much better than the other block templates. Malinaccier (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, Keep as used. Mhiji (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BlockGW[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:BlockGW (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Has actually been used several times. Block templates are typically substituted rather than transcluded. --King Öomie 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • But genre warring is not a valid reason to block a user... The correct block templates should be used instead. Mhiji (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you provide any examples of where it has been used? Mhiji (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As I recall, there have been genre wars sufficiently disruptive that the use is appropriate. Of course we could use a nonspecific disruption template and explain , but tthat's no reason not to have a standard one. I find the availability of the various templates a useful reminder when dealing with a problem user. . DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But there are already block templates for edit warring. I don't see why it's necessary to have a separate template just for this type of edit warring... Mhiji (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see why the availability of a more general template necessitates this one's deletion. Why have multiple block templates at all in that case? It seems a single template to add the stop_x_nuvola image and a hand-typed description would suffice. --King Öomie 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, it links to User:Realist2/Genre Warrior. If a user is being blocked, they should be referred to the official policies and guidelines, not an essay created in userspace... That definitely needs changing. Mhiji (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
        • And if that's removed, then this is definitely redundant to edit-warring block templates. Mhiji (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep While I am not an admin I know of users that have been blocked for genre waring. If i was the one blocking them, this would be invaluable to get the point across. Instead of deleting the better course of action would be advertising the existence of this template. The fact that the essay is in userspace is irrelevant, the idea behind the essay is firmly rooted on many policies and is commonly enforced. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep We have numerous specialized block templates for specific circumstances. Genre-warring is a specific, particularly problematic and annoying form of edit-warring, it's convenient and helpful to have a specific template for it. The problem with the link can be fixed by editing and is not a valid reason to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bilateral relations task force Invitation[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Close. Please, start an MfD for this task force. It does not make sense to delete one of their templates without deleting the task force itself. Ruslik_Zero 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bilateral relations task force Invitation (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: I left a note on the task force's talk page, but there hasn't been any activity there since May 2010. TheFeds 05:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bishops of Port Elizabeth[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Mhiji (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bishops of Port Elizabeth (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Red links. Mhiji (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It is used, and I removed both of the redlinks (which seems to me to be what to do in these cases: don't euthenize the patient when amputation will cure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Well it wasn't when I made the nom... Keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ben Affleck[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused, underpopulated navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ben Affleck (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It is a bit odd that someone bothered creating this but didn't bother adding it to the few articles it would apply to. If they didn't se the point I don't either. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, WP:NENAN. Mhiji (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant to category system. Abductive (reasoning) 15:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find it is rather odd that the template was nominated for deletion after two days (!) since it had been created just because it was unused. Ruslik_Zero 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BUAFLPrimaryColor[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:BUAFLPrimaryColor (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:BUAFLSecondaryColor (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:BUAFLSecondaryColorRaw (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Algerian diaspora[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete

Template:Algerian diaspora (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Nearly all red. Mhiji (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Ambassadors course table[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Mhiji (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ambassadors course table (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:American icon[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:American icon (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:British icon (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused, unnecessary. Redundant to Template:En icon. Mhiji (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete The purpose of these icons is to indicate the reader that the linked article is in a particular language. I doubt that anyone is going to not click on an article because they are unable to read either American (or British) English but are able to read British (or American) English. I would argue that even the use of the "en icon" on this Wikipedia is somewhat unnecessary. If you are on the English WP, do we need to warn you that the linked article is in English. Gasp! 134.253.26.6 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "England and America are two countries separated by a common language." (George Bernard Shaw) The purpose of this pair of icons is to distinguish between American and British usage (not mere differences in spelling) which can be considerable. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But per 134.253.26.6, every American or Briton can also read the other language. I know there are quite a few differences between American and British (although they are all just the odd word - mostly just spelling), but I don't think the differences are considerable - the differences don't change the meaning of a website, or put off people from reading it. The reader doesn't gain anything from being warned that the web page might have a few words in it which are "missing a letter" or have an "extra" one (that's what most of the differences are). Mhiji (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The quote attributed to Shaw is apocryphal. Cf. Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need language icons for minor language variations such as American vs. British. The purpose of language icons is to identify at a glance whether or not you are likely to understand an external link, before you click on it to go there. (But there actually is a good use for {{en icon}} on English Wikipedia, and that is to identify foreign language websites that also have an English section. I've used that technique several times.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no need to separate between varieties of English, users of one variety can read the others and vice versa. This is no help to the user unless every external link is tagged. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete isn't it en-us and en-gb in any case? If necessary, add a parameter to en-icon. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AS Saint-Étienne Ladies squad[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete

Template:AS Saint-Étienne Ladies squad (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Unused? I only created the template recently and have used the template for Saint-Étienne women's players here, here, here, and here. I am currently in the process of creating the articles (and improving women's football on Wikipedia, in general) that are red links, but I am currently busy at the moment in the real world. I would prefer this template not be deleted. Later. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It is unused. The template used on those articles is Template:AS Saint-Étienne (Ladies) squad. This is a duplicate of that. Speedy delete this one per T3. Mhiji (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
So the latter template mentioned by you is okay? If so, then I'm alright with the deletion of the duplicate. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ACT on Campus[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:ACT on Campus (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redundant copy of {{ACT NZ}}, which is the appropriate one to use. Simon Brady (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete per T3. Mhiji (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Simon Brady. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2010-11 Townsville Crocodiles season game log[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep Mhiji (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:2010-11 Townsville Crocodiles season game log (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template should not be deleted. This template is now being used in 2010-11 Townsville Crocodiles season. Eccy89 (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep it as a template though? Since it'll only ever be used on that page, we can subst it there and then delete. Mhiji (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Because updating the page becomes too messy with the game log inside it. All the NBA teams/seasons work by using game log templates. Please see category link - Category:2010-11 National Basketball Association game log templates Eccy89 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2010-11 New Zealand Breakers season game log[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:2010-11 New Zealand Breakers season game log (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Again, I have created a 2010-11 New Zealand Breakers season with this template being used.

Eccy89 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:2008 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football standings[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:2008 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football standings (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:COMilitary[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep Mhiji (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:COMilitary (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Now in full use PGPirate 20:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:COIN notice[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:COIN notice (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:CNL-Pegasus[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CNL-Pegasus (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:CNL-Berliner[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CNL-Berliner (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:CNID Footballer of the Year Winners[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per T3. Mhiji (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CNID Footballer of the Year Winners (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep: In use per Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:CNID_Footballer_of_the_Year_Winners. Peachey88 (T · C) 00:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not, there's no transclusions of it. Just realised, this is a duplicate of Template:Portuguese Footballer of the Year. Speedy delete per T3. Mhiji (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canadian federal election, 2009[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canadian federal election, 2009 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete There was no federal election in 2009. Probably created by someone jumping the gun and anticipating one as Parliament was bordering on collapse for a time. Resolute 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canadian Provinces and Territories gallery[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Regarding the transwiki suggestion, these images are already part of a Commons gallery. --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Provinces and Territories gallery (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't even fathom how this is useful. Resolute 20:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Commons as a gallery, which is what it is. 184.144.165.37 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canadian Federal Election Candidate List[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Federal Election Candidate List (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete but potentially userfy in creator's userspace? This doesn't belong in a template in the first place, but the layout could be useful for a list article about other elections. Resolute 20:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canada provinces topomap[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G7. Mhiji (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canada provinces topomap (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete its unused because they seem to be using Template:Canada provinces map instead as at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs) 15:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canada at the Olympics[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canada at the Olympics (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Can city COA layout[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Can city COA layout (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete or move into WP:CANADA project space. It really just a recommended style layout for a very specific type of article. Resolute 20:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CanMilHistNotice[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was move to project space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CanMilHistNotice (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Projectify it looks like a wikiproject invitation template, and those are frequently substed. Move it to Task Force Canada of WPMILHIST space. 184.144.165.37 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Move per the anon. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Abstain Looks like I created it at some point. I have no objections to what ever course is taken Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Projectify or keep. It really doesn't make much difference. MitchellDuce (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campsie platform box[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was substitute and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campsie platform box (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've replaced it, not sure why it was removed. Endarrt (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Is there any reason to keep it as a template though? Since it'll only ever be used on that page, we can subst it there and then delete. Mhiji (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete. There is no need for this as a single-use template. The table it creates can simply be in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio seasons[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio seasons (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox Wars of Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Wars of Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox References[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox References (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox Naval engagements of the Korean War[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Naval engagements of the Korean War (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Coverage of the Korean War is adequate in the KW campaignbox. This one is misused in that it contains material not related to the 1950-1953 Korean War.--S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)15:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasion of North China[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasion of North China (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox Mongol conquest of South China[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per T3. Mhiji (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Mongol conquest of South China (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Deleteit is a copy of {{Campaignbox Mongol conquest of the Song Dynasty}} --Guerillero | My Talk 03:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guerillero. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campaignbox King Philip's War[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Mhiji (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox King Philip's War (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, what? the template is clearly being used on two articles. Furthermore, the relevant guidelines states 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 (my emphasis) - as the links in the template clearly show there are other articles which need to be written which would fall within the scope of the template. Hence the likelihood of it being used even more in the future is pretty good.
More generally I notice that Mhiji has just proposed a very large number of templates for deletion and while I'm sure some of these proposals are justified I seriously question this kind of a mass action. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see, it's not used in the sense that it is not in the articles listed in the template. Well, then it just needs to be added to those articles, which I'll do now. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campaignbox Indian Wars of the Southern British Colonies in North America[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Merge to {{Campaignbox Indian Wars of the Southern English Colonies in North America}}. --RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Indian Wars of the Southern British Colonies in North America (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not unused. It is used in the articles on Tuscarora War and Yamasee War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDW Megaraptor (talkcontribs) 19:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This one isn't used. The one on those articles is {{Campaignbox Indian Wars of the Southern English Colonies in North America}}. They're pretty much duplicates though. Merge the two. Mhiji (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Campaignbox Glamorgan[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Glamorgan (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. red links Mhiji (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox Despenser wars[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Despenser wars (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox Austro-Turkish War (1526-1552)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Austro-Turkish War (1526-1552) (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox Atlantic Ocean and North Sea 1914–1918[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Atlantic Ocean and North Sea 1914–1918 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox Anglo–Spanish War (1625)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Anglo–Spanish War (1625) (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: Northern Carolina[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: Northern Carolina (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Nearly all red links Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: John Hood's Retreat from Tennessee[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: John Hood's Retreat from Tennessee (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Nearly all red links Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: John Hood's March to Tennessee[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: John Hood's March to Tennessee (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Nearly all red links Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Cairo Radio[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete as an underpopulated navbox, pending future creation of articles to provide working links on this topic. Willing to userfy if someone wants to adopt it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cairo Radio (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Nearly all red links. Mhiji (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Found a use for it on Radio Masr. ThemFromSpace 11:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, but we really don't need a navbox with one blue link in it. The red links shouldn't be there per WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties. Navboxes are for navigating between articles - this doesn't aid navigation. Mhiji (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
      • There isn't much of a focus on modern Egyptian topics on Wikipedia so we can't assume all these redlinks lead to nonnotable subjects. If/when the others get filled in this template would be handy to have around. If it can be demonstrated that the current bluelink is the only notable radio station in Cairo then deletion would be an option, but I have a hard time imagining that a city of nearly 8 million people has only one notable radio station. ThemFromSpace 20:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
        • If we're keeping it for a later date, it can be userfied. There's no point having it on that article or even in template space at all though. Mhiji (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, while I have to agree with Themfromspace that there most likely are notable radio stations in Cairo, it is presumptuous of us to assume the fact and then keep this redlinked template in preparation for that possible future. Create the articles first, then recreate the template later. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CSU Asesoft[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CSU Asesoft (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:CSK VVS Samara[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CSK VVS Samara (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:CKCCF[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CKCCF (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Nearly all red links Mhiji (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unused and pointless. Highly unlikely any of those red-links will ever become articles and the two blue-links are to entirely unrelated generic articles on volleyball and backetball. wjematherbigissue 22:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CHL season standings legend[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deleted by User:Athaenara. JPG-GR (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CHL season standings legend (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Resolute 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as creator. As already noted above by Mhiji, I too see no reason for its existence. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cambrian ISC[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cambrian ISC (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:C Jakarta[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:C Jakarta (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete has been overtaken by {{Jakarta}} --Guerillero | My Talk 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cabinet of Albania[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cabinet of Albania (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete the contents already appear (not transcluded) in Cabinet of Albania. I don't know of any other article that would need this. ThemFromSpace 11:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CI4ElimHist[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CI4ElimHist (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused Mhiji (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Its in-use here Canadian Idol (season 4)#Elimination chart --Guerillero | My Talk 03:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
But it's been subst'd there. There's no need to keep the template too. Mhiji (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canadian Air Force[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Air Force (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I turned it into a redirect to Template:Canadian Forces Air Command (they don't even call it the Canadian Air Force) so this discussion can be closed now. Kevin Rutherford (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Canadian music quick links[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Mhiji (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canadian music quick links (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused Mhiji (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep was a code linking error.. page now used for Music project page. PS thank you for bring this link error to our attention.Moxy (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Good catch Mhiji (talk)! I will modify the template for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music project. Argolin (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cardenal Caro Province[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cardenal Caro Province (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Cancelled[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cancelled (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep: It may be unused at the moment but there are a lot of people who haven't discovered it yet. Just like the Not done template and the Doing template, anyone may simply put {{Canceled}} for various purposes. It would be helpful if the Cancelled template was to be kept. Jaguar (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
But when would anyone need to use it? Mhiji (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It's just like the other templates. Doing... can be used if a user describes that they are in the middle of doing something, and Yes check.svg Done is used a lot. I invented Cancelled cross.svg Cancelled because it would be helpful to use a template rather than the verb. It could be 'advertised' if the template were to have a template documentation. Jaguar (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand Yes check.svg Done can be useful (I've used it myself) and can see that Doing... could be too (and evidently it is because people use it). But I can't think of any reason why some one would use this template. We already have X mark.svg Not done, so I think this template's pretty redundant to that really. Can you give a specific example of where this might be used? Mhiji (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't find the page now as someone has removed the Cancelled template from the article. But there used to be a page about a album which was releasesd in 2002. In the infobox was the {{Cancelled}} because the furure album was cancelled. There can be a lot of various uses for the Canceled template, such as things that are cancelled! We should keep this. Jaguar (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think if an album is cancelled we should bother mentioning it in the infobox at all - that seems to be current practice. If we were to start to doing that (I personally don't think it's a good idea - it doesn't really add anything), that would need to be proposed at WT:ALBUMS first before implementing it. Mhiji (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2011 in Japanese football[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was procedural close - incomplete nom. JPG-GR (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I got a TfD notification message but there isn't an entry of the template here. Anyway, it is used now and will be used more as soon as I start 2011 season articles. The template is just next-year continuation of the existing ones. —WiJG? 05:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Gridiron football person alt[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Gridiron football person alt (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

I don't see how this is different from {{Infobox gridiron football person}} Magioladitis (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Use the power of "what links here" and voila, we find Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 7#New Gridiron person infobox. Now, if this is necessary can be debated, but the rationale for its creation is clear. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I have checked the transclusions, and this one has a subset of the features of the standard box. The standard box allows for Arena League, which appears to be the reason why the "alt" version was created. Hence, this one can be deleted. I have orphaned a few. Someone can revert me if they don't like it. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Early Cricketer[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge into {{Infobox cricketer}}. JPG-GR (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Early Cricketer (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox cricketer}} which has a bit more options. We can make the extra options optional and the two templates will be the same. Magioladitis (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It can hardly be termed "redundant" when about 50 articles use it. However, if you are proposing a merger with {{Infobox cricketer}} such that the information can be limited to that needed by these articles, then I have no objection other than to ask who is going to amend the infobox in the articles? The point about these articles given their use of this infobox is that there is little or no statistical data about the careers of the very early players. If Magioladitis can effect a seamless transition, then – fine. ----Jack | talk page 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see any reason to have a separate template for this. What's wrong with using {{Infobox cricketer}}? Mhiji (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment. You are very new to the site and your comment displays a not unexpected lack of experience and understanding. As explained above and as obviously realised by Magioladitis himself, work is needed so that {{Infobox cricketer}} will be suitable for the 50-plus articles that use {{Infobox Early Cricketer}}. We cannot just delete the template without ensuring that its replacement is fit for purpose as otherwise those articles are going to look a mess and that helps nobody. Kindly think about the purpose of these templates and show a bit of thought before you jump in with a "what's wrong with this" sort of remark which is hardly constructive. ----Jack | talk page 08:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, please don't be so patronising. Just because I am "new" to the site is irrelevant. Just because I have only recently created an account doesn't mean I have not been using the site as an IP for years... And over the last couple of months I've done over 14,000 edits - you've only done 45,000 since July 2005... And also please don't bite the newcomers! Obviously this template would never just be deleted without sorting out the mess it would create first. Sorry if I was unclear at all with my "What's wrong with using {{Infobox cricketer}}?" comment (which you didn't reply to). What I meant by that was why do we need a separate template for "early" cricketers?! This just seems ridiculous. We should have just one infobox for all cricketers (unless there is a really good reason to have a separate one). What extra, necessary, used fields are there at {{Infobox Early Cricketer}} which the standard cricketer infobox doesn't have? If there are any, we can add them to {{Infobox cricketer}}. Mhiji (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The reason for having a separate infobox is because the main one is unsuitable for players who have no surviving statistical data. Given your attitude I am not convinced that the necessary improvements would be made by the inhabitants of this process, which strikes me as being a clone of CFD, and therefore I am now opposing the proposal. By the way, I noticed that the vast majority of your edits are to admin pages rather than to develop articles (hence you will build the numbers in a very short timespan) but I don't think you are in the habit of advising interested parties about your change proposals and that is something you need to address. You also need to understand that the purpose of the site is to develop articles for the benefit of the readers. These pages have their purpose but when we get people who think that their schematics come before the provision of information, as at CFD, the site has problems. ----Jack | talk page 06:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
"The vast majority of your edits are to admin pages rather than to develop articles". What are you talking about?!!?! The majority of my edits are in article space (see here). Not that my editing habits or that I am a new user are anything to do with this TfD... You are "now opposing the proposal" because of what I have said - that's ridiculous. The "necessary improvements" would not "be made by the inhabitants of this process" (I assume you mean me) anyway. The closing admin would make the necessary changes, so that certainly isn't a reason to oppose deletion (I would have nothing to do with it). Also, again, that didn't really answer my question. What extra, necessary, used fields are there at {{Infobox Early Cricketer}} which the standard cricketer infobox doesn't have? Mhiji (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete/merge, but only so long as we make sure that {{Infobox cricketer}} is altered so that this change can be seamless, rather than creating the mess that Jack is worried about. Harrias talk 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge. No need for this kind of duplication. Adapt {{Infobox cricketer}} to cope, it's not that difficult. As far as I can see, not wanting to do the work is the only rationale that is being put forward for objecting, which simply has no legs I'm afraid. If there is a strong reason for having separate infoboxes, I can't think of it. wjematherbigissue 22:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge - the idea behind {{Infobox cricketer}} was always to replace (in the fullness of time!) all the other cricketer infoboxes. Simply by setting the statistics columns to 0, removes all of the stats info from the box (at the moment, the only problem I can see is that the "Career Statistics" header is still present, but that is a small matter to fix if I or anyone else can find the time. I know that templates are not supposed to be nominated until all transclusions have been altered, but as long as the field names are consistent it shouldn't take anyone long to make the switch. I can't see any other fields that would need changing to ensure the suitability of Infobox cricketer. If Jack can point them out the other specifics, I can see about getting it sorted.—User:MDCollins (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:New York Yankees seasons[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:New York Yankees seasons (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

I tried CSD once before as these pages are transcluded in Template:New York Yankees (all the way at the bottom), but this was denied for some reason. Maybe that user didn't see it? Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redundant to the main Yankees template. Resolute 20:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per Resolute. WAYNESLAM 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Major League Soccer[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Close (sent to MFD). Ruslik_Zero 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Major League Soccer (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This WikiProject seems to be dead, and no articles transclude the assessment banner. Logan Talk Contributions 01:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:IraqSniper[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:IraqSniper (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This navigational footer template contains 2 non-redlinks. I can't see where this is a useful template. Function could easily be covered by a category. Jayron32 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been several years since I made that, so my memory could be rusty, but I'm fairly certain that every link I made was originally valid. I have no idea why those articles no longer exist, since a Google search of their names yields enough sources to demonstrate some measure of notability for each of the gentlemen. James Gilliand, Galen Wilson, Ethan Place. I think the Wikipedia would be better served with turning those redlinks blue again. Preferably by someone who's not currently in finals week and studying for his GRE. If no one is available to step up to sort it out, I can deal with it next week. EvilCouch (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I believe at least one of the articles was taken to AFD. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galen Wilson. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.