Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4

Template:PD-self-ineligible

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

Unused overly specific license template with no equivalent on Commons, complicating trans-wiki moves. PD is PD, whether it's {{PD-self}} or {{PD-ineligible}}. Kelly ^hi! 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Planet illogica partners

Template:Planet illogica partners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template is not necessary; promotional in nature. Phearson (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhpBBimg

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

Unused image license. Kelly ^hi! 03:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-Armenica

Template:GFDL-Armenica (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Source-specific GFDL tag no longer needed at Wikipedia. Future images from this source can either be uploaded with {{GFDL}} or uploaded to Commons; images copied back to Wikipedia from Commons can use generic GFDL tag. Kelly ^hi! 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - with all due respect to uploader and message on talk page, this template is unneeded. The only major difference between cc-sa and cc-nc-sa is that nc doesn't allow commercial derivatives. Paradoxically, GFDL does. After license migration to cc-by-sa, the template as such contradicts itself. Replace with {{Self|cc-by-sa-2.0|GFDL-with-disclaimers|migration=redundant}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup

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

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

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

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

Keep It's not the best template to use in most cases. But it is very useful for even totally unsiklled beginners who want to mark that something seems badly wrong, but do not know the unbelievably complex maze of specific templates. Then someone else can go round and do things more precisely. If we eliminate general problem templates like these what is someone to do who knows there are problems, but does not know just how to indicate them? DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also. Why place half a dozen specific templates when one general "Requires cleanup" could be used in their place. Often it's obvious what needs to be done on the article to clean it up, and littering the top of the articles with multiple other templates wouldn't really highlight anything non-obvious or motivate editors to edit. --AerobicFox (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen an article that needed half a dozen specific templates. Nor have I seen a case where the cleanup was blatantly obvious from just the {{Cleanup}} tag. Besides being convenient to n00bs, what purpose does this template serve that others don't? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the only people who can tell if an article needs cleanup is a user who is hyperfamiliar with every cleanup template? WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY on that. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you remove all the general tags, then no tags will be on any articles that need it. Because yes, people are lazy and just slap "Expand" or "Cleanup" on things. If you remove these templates, then loads of articles will have NO tags, when they need them. While it may be obvious to certain editors that an article needs help, if there isn't a tag saying the article fails, some people might think that the article ISN'T bad. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep let me get this straight, if we have no specific template for a cleanup that is required, then the article should remain as bad as it is, because we have no way to indicate that it needs cleanup? So... we should not indicate that articles are broken, since there is no way to do so. As you seem to be saying that if the specific cleanup template doesn't currently exist, it doesn't need cleaning up, that's a rather large leap in logical fallacy. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no specific HTML cleanup tag. {{wikify}} claims to do this job, but the text of the message only indicates that it should be used to add internal links, clearly not an HTML cleanup tag, which editors remove when links have been added, without wikicode conversion of HTML. So no, there are not actually cleanup tags to specify common cleanup cases. Indeed there is proof that people think that "wikify" is only for adding internal links, right here a few days ago on TfD, where it was cited as redudant with "dead end". 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. It's not quite as obvious to us as it may be to you. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Political Graveyard has nothing to do with IFU. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indentvote

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

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

Comment as author. We used this in 2008 for the last open Arbcom election, when votes would be indented and removed from the count of votes for a candidate. Since we're using secret ballots now, we don't need to use this template. Since the template was substituted, there aren't any active instances to clean up. Unless it needs to be marked historical due to its use in the election, this can probably be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incredibles characters

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. It's not quite as obvious to us as it may be to you. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Include page

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IncludeIfExists

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. It's not quite as obvious to us as it may be to you. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Template:RFC list footer unsorted

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

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

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

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

Template deleted by myself. It was used for... something, I think, but it somehow priced itself out of the business or something. harej 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Resolved2

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant with various closure templates (most likely the {{discussion-top}} {{discussion-bottom}} templates and {{done}} / {{not done}} ) 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiportal:Poland/Selected anniversaries

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiportal:Poland/Did you know

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiportal:Pakistan/Upcoming elections

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiportal:Japan/Featured

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
move to Portal:Japan/Featured article and let them use it for historical reasons as they would. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spirituality portal2

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. You're doing a major cleanup job, but you have to help us with your logic specifically for each one of these. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Selected portals

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

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

Template:Portals view: Technology

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

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

please explain why it is unnecessary. I gather they're not all red links. . DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal42

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

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

Template:Image Comics Portal

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

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

Delete, has been orphaned for some time (e.g., on this list from over a year ago). 134.253.26.4 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drink portal selected

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

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

Keep - The reason Portal:Drink/Selected articles was deleted was because it was created in error. It was replaced with Portal:Drink/Selected article which still exists and is populated with nearly 25 articles. I have fixed several issues and have place this template on the talk pages of the Drink Portal Selected articles it was supposed to go on originally. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiPortal Sports and games

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

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

Template:WikiPortal Electronic music

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

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

Template:WikiPortal Cellular Devices

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

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

Template:Bulisa District

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

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

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

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

Keep, part of the series Category:Uganda district templates. 134.253.26.4 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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