Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 16

December 16

Template:In

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

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. a ∈ A. 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 $\in$. 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)

Template:Conflicted-license

Template:Conflicted-license (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Self nomination this is a template I made, Following the disscusion on Short-Rationale, I'm expressing concerns that the template could allow some images that should not be allowed to avoid proper scrutiny. Also as can be seen from the history this template has gone through at least 3 rewrites, and it's still a mess. Delete and review taggings on a case-by-case basis. Well intentioned template but in it's current form it's a mess... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Well-intentioned, however. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep:The wording may need to be tweaked here and there but it is a useful tag. Many editors may not be aware of the concept or this tag, but it doesn't mean it is not needed. The other option would be to convert it to some sort of semi-speedy, or pre semi-speedy, warning tag along the lines of {{di-no permission}}. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  Turning it into a Deletable Image template seems a dandy idea, as such a nomination would fall quite neatly into speedy criterion F4, lack of licensing information. I would use the term "ambiguous or conflicting licensing terms" when describing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: Take a look at Template:Conflicted-license\reword\ and see what you think. Two versions - one based on this and one based on the "di-no" series of tags. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox template moved to Template:Conflicted-license/Reword, but otherwise discussion occurring over there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:38, 8 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) 23:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Expand

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

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

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)
• 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)
• 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)

• For sections there is Template:Expand_section which is not nominated for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 23:38, 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)
  • Why? Just a vote is pointless. Mhiji (talk) 02:16, 17 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)

• 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)
• Keep Per above. Gage (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Why specifically? Just a vote is pointless. Mhiji (talk) 00:15, 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)
  • Why? Just a vote is pointless. Mhiji (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• Keep – Not all articles that need expansion are stubs. –MuZemike 02:54, 17 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:

• Waste in the United States
• Ferrous metal recycling
• Mobile phone recycling
• Aquifers in the United States
• Air pollution in Canada

and many more. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:58, 17 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. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^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)

• 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_Jrb^talk 15:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  Especially MickMacNee, whose points are very relevant. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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. Shannon^talk _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 OlEnglish →♠GƒoleyFour♠← 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)
• 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, or even a dozen) of non-registered users registering and 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 one to see that an article needs expansion. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:AustralianFootballbox collapsible

Template:AustralianFootballbox collapsible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:ARSB

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

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)

Template:ARSH1a

Template:ARSH1a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH2a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH3a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH4a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH5a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH6a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH7a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH8a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH1b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH2b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH3b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH4b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH5b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH6b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH7b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ARSH8b (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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)

Template:CBB seasons row

Template:CBB seasons row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CBB seasons conf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CBB seasons coach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Infobox Indic names

Template:Infobox Indic names (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Infobox School Formal

Template:Infobox School Formal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:In the news (main page)

Template:In the news (main page) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:BugFixed

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

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)

Template:BlockGW

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

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)

• Here. --King Öomie 23:02, 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)

Template:Bilateral relations task force Invitation

Template:Bilateral relations task force Invitation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Ben Affleck

Template:Ben Affleck (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:BUAFLPrimaryColor

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

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

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

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

Template:American icon

Template:American icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)
• 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)

Template:ACT on Campus

Template:ACT on Campus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season buttons

Template:2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season buttons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Because the season has not started yet, it is blank. the template is hidden in the 2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season page. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Netural - Whilst it isn't showing up on what links here, as Anirudh said it has already been commented into the 2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. So for that reason i feel the nomination isn't valid. However, we do not usually create the buttons until 1 or 2 storms have formed.Jason Rees (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete since it hasn't started yet. Button bars shouldn't be made until there is at least one storm, and it's generally useless until there are two storms with articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:2010-11 New Zealand Breakers season game log

Template:2010-11 New Zealand Breakers season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:2008 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football standings

Template:2008 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:1967 in Asian Football (AFC)

Template:1967 in Asian Football (AFC) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. nearly all red links Mhiji (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:COIN notice

Template:COIN notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:CNL-Pegasus

Template:CNL-Pegasus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:CNL-Berliner

Template:CNL-Berliner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:CNID Footballer of the Year Winners

Template:CNID Footballer of the Year Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Canadian federal election, 2009

Template:Canadian federal election, 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Canadian Provinces and Territories gallery

Template:Canadian Provinces and Territories gallery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Canadian Federal Election Candidate List

Template:Canadian Federal Election Candidate List (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Canada at the Olympics

Template:Canada at the Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Delete. Redundant to {{Infobox Olympics Canada}}. Resolute 20:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Can city COA layout

Template:Can city COA layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:CanMilHistNotice

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

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)

Template:Campsie platform box

Template:Campsie platform box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio seasons

Template:Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox Wars of Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah

Template:Campaignbox Wars of Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox References

Template:Campaignbox References (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox Naval engagements of the Korean War

Template:Campaignbox Naval engagements of the Korean War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Support deletion. 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)

Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasion of North China

Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasion of North China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox Mongol conquest of South China

Template:Campaignbox Mongol conquest of South China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)
  • Speedy delete per WP:T3 Mhiji (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Campaignbox Indian Wars of the Southern British Colonies in North America (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox Glamorgan

Template:Campaignbox Glamorgan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox Despenser wars

Template:Campaignbox Despenser wars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox Austro-Turkish War (1526-1552)

Template:Campaignbox Austro-Turkish War (1526-1552) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox Atlantic Ocean and North Sea 1914–1918

Template:Campaignbox Atlantic Ocean and North Sea 1914–1918 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox Anglo–Spanish War (1625)

Template:Campaignbox Anglo–Spanish War (1625) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: Northern Carolina

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: Northern Carolina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: John Hood's Retreat from Tennessee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Template:Campaignbox American Civil War: John Hood's March to Tennessee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Cairo Radio

Template:Cairo Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:CSU Asesoft

Template:CSU Asesoft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:CSK VVS Samara

Template:CSK VVS Samara (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:CKCCF

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

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

Template:Cambrian ISC

Template:Cambrian ISC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:C Jakarta

Template:C Jakarta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Delete has been overtaken by {{Jakarta}} --Guerillero | My Talk 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cabinet of Albania

Template:Cabinet of Albania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:CI4ElimHist

Template:CI4ElimHist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Canadian Air Force

Template:Canadian Air Force (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Canadian music quick links

Template:Canadian music quick links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Cardenal Caro Province

Template:Cardenal Caro Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Cancelled

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

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  Done is used a lot. I invented 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  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  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)

• Redirect to {{notdone}} . 184.144.165.37 (talk) 04:34, 17 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)

Template:2011 in Japanese football

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)

Template:Infobox Gridiron football person alt

Template:Infobox Gridiron football person alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:Infobox Early Cricketer

Template:Infobox Early Cricketer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:New York Yankees seasons

Template:New York Yankees seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)

Template:WikiProject Major League Soccer

Template:WikiProject Major League Soccer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• 'Comment the WikiProject itself looks unsactioned. Send the entire WikiProject to MfD for deletion. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:IraqSniper

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

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)