< September 19	September 21 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-RM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not a PD template, but a fair use template. Lupo 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Just Say No to Restrictive Image Use Gracenotes^T § 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted, this is not a public domain release, and the first, vague, bullet point, if correct, makes it more or less to US fair use. No need for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Gracenotes. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreed, this is not a PD template. Carlosguitar 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing: it appears to be public domain but it's actually very restrictive, not much less restrictive in the US than simple copyrighted material (fair use duplicates much of what's granted). CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 26 September 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ziltoid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete various album tracks that have been deleted after AFD, serves no purpose. — Carlossuarez46 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused template with no useful links, except the music album of the artist. It's basically a link-template of all the album's songs (12 in total), each of which was individually created in August-Sept 2007, and all subsequently deleted for failing notability guidelines (see discussion). Unless the songs are re-created with established notability, there's just no use for this template. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused and unhelpful due to AFD. Carlosguitar 14:46, 22 September 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was deleted per CSD G7 (author request). Melsaran (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albumrationale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

((Album+rationale)) uses the standard nfur template. SarekOfVulcan 05:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I copied this from Wikipedia:Use rationale examples, for convenience, but if the other template is a standard template and should be used instead, I'll tag it for deletion then. Melsaran (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Opinion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wayyyy too long to just be stuck inline with the text. Look at this example- it's ludicrous froth^t 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and I've deleted them all from the above article. A header stating that the prose/grammar is incorrect and that the article may need copy editing is sufficient. To highlight every single issue in a paragraph turns a potentially badly written paragraph into something completely illegible. The time taken to add all of these to the above article could have been better spent, tweaking the article itself and removing the problems. ^Khukri 07:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above guiltyspark 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral with Damian Yerrick's changes guiltyspark 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've made it significantly more concise, to fit in better with ((or)) and ((fact)). --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an unnecesary duplicate of Template:Or. 'Nuff said. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems redunant to ((or)) and ((who?)). A personal opinion will probably fall under one of those tags, right? That said, maybe some broader overhauling of ((cn))'s cousins is needed, to make sure they accurately convey the specific reasons a citation or clarification is needed for various types of claims. If discussion starts somewhere, consider letting me know. --W.marsh 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect If there isn't any difference in use and purpose between the first template ((Or)) (created in 4/2006) and the second ((Opinion)) (created in 1/2007), then we don't need both of them. ((Opinion)) is currently less used (only 17 article links), so ideally should be eliminated. If the result is delete, then the links should be changed (which is no big deal given the small number of pages). Duplicity is unnecessary and inefficient for the project. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mere duplicate. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete replaceable by templates cited above. Carlosguitar 14:46, 22 September 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep, since nobody now wants it deleted.. NE2 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYC Expressways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Far too large to be useful. Note that the template doesn't include the multiple parkways on Long Island within the NYC limits that are expressways. This could probably be converted to a list, but as a template...it has to go. — TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too bulky, and USRD has a precedent against large navbox templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the template has been improved, I retract my delete vote. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If other cities can have templates for expressways & freeways, New York City should have the right to have them too. ---- DanTD 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But other cities cannot have such templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently they do though: Template:Metro Birmingham expressways and who knows what else. --W.marsh 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Miami and Tampa Bay do. ---- DanTD 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too unwieldy and will become overly large if completed. Either organize and complete the highway list in New York metropolitan area, or create a category instead. --Polaron | Talk 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The smaller version limited to NYC is ok with me. --Polaron | Talk 19:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Template serves a very clear purpose and does so in an appropriate amount of space. It's astonishing that the nominator not only does not understand the difference between an expressway and a parkway (no commercial traffic) in the NYC area, but does not consider any means of reducing the size of the template, which is the only meaningful concern raised here. Why pursue deletion, when discussion might actually address your concerns AND provide useful information to readers of these articles? Alansohn 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted I dislike most navboxes to begin with. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any argument other than that USRD doesn't approve of it, which isn't really a rational for deletion. This seems to be a basic navigational template... rather than delete because it's too clunky, it seems like a way could be found to keep it manageable. Many navbox templates have dozens of items in them. --W.marsh 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rework to remove NJ and CT, which I don't believe have the same expressway/parkway dichotomy as New York. It can be compressed by removing "expressway" from each. There is a similar Template:NYC Parkways, which has existed since 2005. --NE2 18:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That parkway template is only for NYC. If we limit it to NYC and shrink it enough it might be ok. I'll try and modify it to make it similar to the parkway template. --Polaron | Talk 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Long Island and Westchester only have a few expressways that don't enter NYC, so it would probably be valid to include them. --NE2 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Polaron and I have cleaned it up to cover only NYC. --NE2 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the template stays its current size, it's probably acceptable now. I'm no longer pursuing deletion; can't speak for the others. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The focus of the templates really is the city/area they're talking about. master son^{T - C} 00:09, 21 September 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shanghai Metro interchange note (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does not appear to be used in a meaningful way. A sentence like this does not need a template unless editors have actually requested it to be in an article. If that ever happens, it would be in plain text, not embedded in a template.. O (说 • 喝) 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - With such a limited scope, this doesn't need to be a template. We can write out the sentence in plain text in the few articles that need it.--Danaman5 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - But we can use the template as part of another template if it is needed. Good friend100 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Scope too limited. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:15, 20 September 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. — Malcolm (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edsel Timeline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Three years in a timeline? Seems useless. Template:Edsel should suffice. — Vossanova ^o< 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral The purpose is clearly not for the template to serve solely as a navigational template, although I admit its position in the article is ambiguous. THis should probably use EasyTimeline, though.Circeus 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This seems to be a standard format for car model timelines, witness Template:Modern North American Ford vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random832 (talk • contribs)
    • Standard format, yes. That does not mean that every auto make should have a timeline, or that it will always be useful and beneficial. --Vossanova ^o< 14:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the navigation template and the timeline (which indeed should ideally use EasyTimeline, but since that's hard to code, I don't see as that problematic) serve different purposes. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No comments for a week? Quick, someone make one! — Malcolm (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It conveys information in a different format than the other template. Looks good to me. --- RockMFR 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm not enamoured of it; it's awfully big for the tiny amount of information it's intended to convey. On the other hand, the argument for deletion is not persuasive. If, as I assume, other types of car have similar templates, there's no reason why the notorious Edsel shouldn't as well. Consistency is usually a good thing, and this is, at worst, harmless. Xtifr _tälk 08:58, 20 September 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep (WP:SNOW). Rich Farmbrough, 18:21 20 September 2007 (GMT).

Template:Refimprove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is just plain unhelpful and even counterproductive. If there are actually "challenged or likely to be challenged" claims in an article, those claims should be removed, or ((fact)) tags added to them so editors can actually address the issue. This template seems to request more references for no apparent reason - if there were actually claims that needed references, the tagger should just add ((fact)) to those claims, so non-mindreading editors can get to work. While ((fact)) often results in references being added where they're needed, ((refimprove)) is vague and I've never seen it actually result in problematic claims being referenced or removed (in fact, since these claims aren't being clearly pointed out, using this instead of ((fact)) might result in libel staying in an article longer than it otherwise would). This template doesn't accomplish it's goal, all it really does is make articles look bad without creating a reasonable chance that the article gets improved.

I know a lot of people will want to keep this because "Hey, anything that calls for improving references must be good, right?" But this template is not effective at improving referencing compared to ((fact)). The template means well, but it ultimately slows progress by being so vague as to be meaningless, yet big and imposing so no one wants to remove it. We can improve referencing faster without this template. W.marsh 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current consensus at WP:V is that is considered polite to and best practice to provide warning to editors before actually removing text. Additionally I fail to see how you "can improve referencing faster without this template" If an editor is not familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability both of which are linked to in this template or is not able to identify the issue with a specific article they are welcome to contact the posting editor, anyone who volunteers at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles or post a comment for help on Template talk:Refimprove. Jeepday (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Does anyone ever actually do those things, though? In my experience, talking to people who've added this template, they don't actually have any specific claims in mind that they're challenging... they just want more references for the sake of more references, which isn't helpful. At any rate, ((fact)) leads to Wikipedia:Citing sources which should be plenty helpful... we could squeeze an exhaustive guide to citing sources into the box, but just leading to one helpful page is enough, and ((fact)) can do that. --W.marsh 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, when I add this template, I have specific claims in mind; usually too many to hit each one with a ((fact)). --jacobolus (t) 00:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no "too many". If an article has that many statements you challenge, shouldn't you just stub it rather than leave that many dubious claims in? --W.marsh 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above Bleh999 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or else change ((unreferenced)) to be a little more forgiving. There are large articles full of unreferenced statements, but which have a single reference for one claim, at which point editors claim that the ((unreferenced)) template is no longer appropriate because it states categorically "no references". It's useful in such cases to put a notice like this one on the article, because adding a ((fact)) tag after every sentence is unnecessarily jarring and renders the result unreadable. In my experience, this template does eventually get removed as sources are added to statements. --jacobolus (t) 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we don't add inline citations as decorations... if there are actually challenged statements, they should be pointed out. No one is advocating adding ((fact)) to every line of an article, just to the dubious ones. --W.marsh 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But even non-dubious statements ought to be referenced, at least en bloc. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jacobolus - ((unreferenced)) is tough by design ((refimprove)) is the less forgiving template. If you have questions about the rationale ask me. Or you can follow the train of thought on Template talk:Unreferenced and Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. Jeepday (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jeepday. This must be one of the most helpful article templates we have. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out an article where it lead to challenged statements being referenced? I'm just curious... I've never seen it. --W.marsh 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any article that a new user comes across which has the template, and that user is unfamiliar with policy. Besides, that's not the gist of the template: the gist is that it needs more references period. The Evil Spartan 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why does it need more references? The only real reason is if specific statements are challenged... there's no need to reference statements no one questions, like "the sky is blue". Again, you said it's helpful, but I'm not seeing any specific examples where it's been helpful. --W.marsh 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Different from other templates since it's stating that there are already references there and they need to be improved, not just a general need for references --froth^t 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a general need for references... all articles need to be improved, but tags pointing it out aren't automatically justified, sometimes they just get in the way and don't really accomplish anything. --W.marsh 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's helpful. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep I don't see this as "unhelpful", rather it is much better than an editor putting ((unsourced)) which was what was done recently even though references were present. Having a better or additional reference is what ((refimprove)) specifically states. I'm afraid that W.marsh does not have consensus or even any validation. FWIW Bzuk 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Validation? That doesn't make any sense... XFD is to get consensus, it's not a place where you must show up with consensus... at any rate, if it's helpful, show me an article where adding this template was helpful where adding ((fact)) wouldn't have been. --W.marsh 00:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have anyone agreeing with you, plain enough? FWIW Bzuk 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There's no need to state that... other than to just try to annoy me. At any rate, can you answer my question? This isn't a vote... no one is really showing any examples where they have improved an article because this template was added. --W.marsh 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the tone was considered inflammatory, just thought you didn't get it, my apologies. However, check Howard Hughes as an example where the tag is useful in keeping entries in place when another editor is bent on removing everything he/she considered OR. At least the tag held off outright reversals for awhile until suitable references were found. FWIW Bzuk 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the example, but I think ((Original research)) would have been better in that case. There wasn't a vague request for more references, there was a specific reason he wanted references (not to endorse his behavior or anything, I'm not familiar with the dispute obviously). --W.marsh 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I saw the issue was more elemental, there was not original research, just a claim for it (the statement was made in the edit history "appear to have been" = original research and may not remain") which was first used as a reason to delete the entire section, then a claim that the materials were ((trivia)) and then ((unsourced)) was made as a means to eliminate the section in pieces, which again wasn't exactly the case as some submissions were and some weren't cited, and there was more than just a list, but an attempt to show the cultural references involved, so that it made sense to use the ((refimprove)) tag because it indicated that there were some reference sources but a need to have better or more references. FWIW Bzuk 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Example: Los Angeles. I threw this tag up in a couple places and editors worked on the article until it was well-sourced. There have to be countless examples where this tag helps; no one wants a big ugly tag at the top of their article.--Loodog 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples given and rationale: As you might already know, there is a wide range of references that are used and a clear distinction can be made for the veracity, authenticity or reliability of sources. A specific textual, published source is preferred to that of a general source, or that of a magazine/journal which is not peer-reviewed. As an editor and author, there are certain standards that must be maintained through adherence to publisher's requirements. The WP:RSUE and WP:RS apply. With respect to the latter, in general, it’s not so much in what form it is published, but the expertise and professionalism of the author and the “forum” in which the source is found. Scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals are considered best, along with books by recognized experts in the field; online discussion forums and blogs are considered unreliable (although they may have experts commenting in them) because there is no independent, third-party review of the author’s writings. Sources like national archives or Military General Orders one has to be careful with, since they are what are known as "primary sources". Wikipedia prefers we write about what others – typically experts in the evaluation and critiquing of such sources – have written about them and the subject matter to which they attest. In essence, yes, what we write here is very much like the research papers written in school, but what is different is that we do not make original observations or conclusions; we write instead about what experts and professionals have written on the subject, since they are (usually) better qualified than we are. Recently in WP:Aviation, an Italian editor has made multiple additions based on obscure Italian-language magazines from a serial children's encyclopedia and has claimed they are just as suitable as reference sources. These items are being replaced as soon as possible by more suitable references. That is why ((refimprove)) is useful as a means of tagging these sorts of references. FWIW Bzuk 02:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong Keep per all of the above.--JForget 01:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per all of the above. Pats1 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per above. This template is a greater flag than any ((fact)) tag could ever be. -- Reaper X 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Fact shows what needs improving... this doesn't. The only thing I've ever been able to do with this template is remove it and ask for what specifically needs to be done. That doesn't seem very great. Can you show me where you've fixed an article because this template was added? --W.marsh 01:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Robust Keep Per above. It is a template to be used when there are just too damn many statements need citing. Which statements it refers to are obvious enough because this tag is generally used when entire paragraphs are unsourced. The obtrusive ugly tag at the top of an article or section gives the article's editors strong motivations to source their articles or remove content they can't support.--Loodog 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • here it was added to an article with 65 inline citations and 20+ general references. What statements it referred to was totally unclear. I've yet to see any evidence that this improves articles except in theory... of course a big box saying "this article isn't perfect yet" is going to be technically true of every article, but it wouldn't accomplish much. --W.marsh 02:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the template should be deleted because of one example where someone misused it? Just remove the tag from the article and ask the person who added it to explain on the article's talk page what sort of improvement they request since it's not obvious. Anomie 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is it's never obvious, unless someone actually specifies the claims they challenge in the edit summary, then there's no reason not to use ((fact)). --W.marsh 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per W.marsh. In my experience, it is usually neither the original writer nor the template-applier who finds references, but rather a third editor. It's difficult to fact-check articles that have only a vague "References needed" tag; it's comparatively easy to fact-check an article whose questionable comments have been labelled.Jlittlet 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If someone contests your material, you could provide a reliable source; this tag helps to alert editors to articles needing these types of sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I'll ask it again... can you show where someone added this to "your material" and you fixed the problem thanks to the alert? Everyone says this is the case, but I've seen only one example, and it was debatable. --W.marsh 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently in ((WP:Aviation)), an Italian editor has made multiple additions based on obscure Italian-language magazines from a serial children's encyclopedia and has claimed they are just as suitable as other reference sources. These items are being replaced as soon as possible by more suitable references. That is why ((refimprove)) is useful as a means of tagging these sorts of references. FWIW Bzuk 02:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think a talk page comment is better in cases like that... oh well, I'm sorry if I've replied to "too many" comments here, I'll just let the discussion go where it goes unless I have something critical to say. I still don't think this tag would be helpful at all to me... whereas ((fact)) tags are great if used in good faith. --W.marsh 02:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and others don't agree...?! C'est la vie. Bzuk.

• Keep per above. When an several entire sections of wikipedia needs sources, but not the whole page, it is just a waste of time to fill the page with fact tags when a single tag like this one suffices.--Sefringle^Talk 02:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the template saves you some time, but it adds to the time it takes for the editor who attempts to fact-check the article; it also multiplies the possibilities for misunderstanding or ineffective sourcing. Jlittlet 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ((unreferenced)) The comment that accompanies the only Delete vote so far says that fact tags are more likely to get results, and that's true. But at the same time there's also value in being able to make a general statement about an article when there's a lot of referencing that needs to be done. Many (and I mean MANY) articles in Wikipedia are just not referenced well at all; It would take a lot of fact tags to tag it all. It's just not necessary. If you see an article that's 8 paragraphs long and there's 2 references listed, there's no need to go through it and put fact tags on everything. It's better to just call attention to the fact that "Hey, this article is pretty poorly referenced, eh?" I do think this should be merged with the unreferenced tag though. It's silly to have two tags, one for when there's not a single reference, and one for when there is at least just one reference. They're both basically saying the same thing.
  Equazcion • improves/contribs • 02:58, 09/20/2007

• Delete. Every article needs references. If there are specific issues, they should be discussed on a talk-page. We also have a very effective ^{[citation needed]} template. This allows specific issues to be addressed on a item-by-item basis, instead of branding an entire article "disreputable." Nimur 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, highly useful maintenance template, very useful for articles which cite a source or two but overly rely on such sources, and in my own opinion can be an excellent alternative to adding ((fact)) and/or ((who)) in 50 different places. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The template is useful, and its a good graduation from the stronger 'Unreferenced' template. Ingolfson 05:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful for cases where there is lots of content believed to be true but lacking references. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just wrong... we don't need references for claims no one doubts are true. References are only needed for claims that someone challenges, or thinks is so dubious that a challenge is inevitable. Referencing obvious claims is a waste of time, when there's so many questionable claims around. --W.marsh 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the reasoning directly above. --Drieux 06:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per all of the above. This template is more useful than the "unreferenced" template for pages which are large (example: 60 kilobytes) and contain only 3 sources. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. There are plenty of lenghthy articles with only one or two references, where the ((unreferenced)) template clearly doesn't apply. Articles would look far worse with dozens of ((fact)) tags scattered throughout the text. PC78 10:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There are plenty of articles that need this template over the "Unreferenced" template - • The Giant Puffin • 11:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and (speedy close per WP:SNOWBALL, as this template's being tagged as up for TfD is disruptive and affecting thousands of articles, and the "keeps" are near-unanimous): Nominator appears to be confused about the purpose of inline cleanup templates like ((fact)), which are for flagging one or a few problems in an otherwise good section, while block templates like this are for flagging the entire section as needing cleanup. We have both template types for a reason, and the fact that we have an inline template that cites the same policy or guideline is not a rationale for deleting the block equivalent, or vice versa. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's disruptive to nominate something for TFD? Then the TFD process is broken... I resent being accused of disruption just for using a process in good faith. At any rate, if you challenge every claim in a section... please just remove the section. I think the confusion here is people want more references, but don't actually challenge any of the claims... they just want more references. However, there's no reason in policy to add references just as decorations... references are only needed for claims that are challenged, or likely to be challenged. There are so many claims that actually are challenged... why should we be wasting people's time holding their article hostage with this template until they reference a bunch of obvious claims? --W.marsh 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even if the template only means that someone should go through the article and check which paragraphs need to be challenged. In fact, I linked "challenged" to the ((fact)) documentation just for this purpose. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. SMcCandlish is right. The two templates (block and inline) serve the same purpose but are used quite differently. However, both are needed. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per most of the above. Like Jacobolus, above, I would be amenable to adjusting ((unreferenced)) instead. ((under-referenced)), perhaps. In any case, a tag like this is useful. — mholland (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Either put this template in 99% articles (well why not, every article with at least one unreferenced sentence qualifies for improving), or delete per w.Marsh. The obvious choice is the latter. The only thing we need is ((fact)) template, which quickly points "here, this one looks strange to me". With zero references ((unreferenced)) is used - great. Why mark a whole article as ((refimprove)), why make it look suspicious, if it already has some references and if no specific sentences are ((fact))-questioned? This template is also too tempting to be automated with a bot - bad, bad, bad idea. --Kubanczyk 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, is this way off? As far as I understand it, the tag is useful to identify a section not necessarily a whole article as having references that can be improved as per WP:RSUE and WP:RS. The ((refimprove)) tag is in use in thousands of articles already and being used effectively as per discussion above. Other tags such as ((wikify)) serve to mark an entire article as needing attention. FWIW, I would also like to call for speedy close per the overwhelming majority of editors' comments above. This odd discourse seems to fit into the MO of editors whose sole interest is in "deletion" of articles, tags and sections. Bzuk 12:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are right I'm one of those :) In these days we must mainly fight with having too much templates/tags/articles. When you have a lot of information it suddenly becomes just a white noise. "Man-to-man knowledge transfer" = "removing all false information and removing most true, too". --Kubanczyk 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm hardly a deletionist... if you check my history. This is about improving articles by getting rid of a problematic tag. --W.marsh 13:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the template is useful per User:Seraphimblade. feydey 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template, like most templates that require mind-reading powers or have vague statements that apply to nearly every article, is useless. However, if it included a "see Talk" link, as someone suggested [1], I might be inclined to support keeping it. --Itub 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's clear that many people seem to think this template is good because it helps get non-challenged claims referenced. The problem is, there's no policy-based reason to reference these claims if no one questions them (which includes thinking they could be libel). People seem to think a long article automatically needs 20-30 inline citations... but we have FAs with no inline citations. It only needs 20-30 inline cites if there are 20-30 challenged claims. --W.marsh 14:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is more. Asymmetry. Anyone can easily justify tagging, but very hard to justify untagging. Untagging will be fully justified only when last obvious-but-unreferenced sentence vanishes. In effect this tag will stuck for years on most pages. Goal of this tag is to have every single sentence referenced - is this really our goal? --Kubanczyk 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It provides value verus the ((fact)) template in that the latter tends to make an article virtually unreadable. ((fact)) is great for isolated instances, but when more paragraphs would be sprinkled with them another, more encompassing, template is needed. Sometimes statements written are uncontroversial, known, etc, or otherwise deserving to remain, but would still benefit from being substantiated by references. This too is an excellent situation for the ((refimprove)). Miqademus 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Yes, we could take the stance that unreferenced stuff should just be removed outright, but that is not productive, and doesn't recognise the process that many people follow with new articles. Many people write new articles from what they know, then go back to add references later. The template serves as a useful reminder if they are tardy in doing so. Mayalld 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's useful. --MrStalker ^talk 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sometimes an article might come along that is dubious needs additional verification in its entirety. In such cases a box at the top of the article is a lot better than tagging every single sentence with ^{[verification needed]} or ^{[citation needed]}. Shinobu 15:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, these are the templates we need more, we should instead use them much more frequently. In any case, improper usage of templates is not caused by templates, but by users. Also speedy close per WP:SNOWBALL. --Angelo 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (not merge) It's a useful tag that marks a document needing more citations. Peppering the text with the Fact tag doesn't get the same notice and visibility as this tag. Note that the instructions for Template:Unreferenced states that it "should be used only on articles that have no sources." David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The tag is to be used when there are already some references, but in general more are needed. The in line fact tag can start to look intrusive if there are too many of them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this gets slapped on where people are too lazy to use ((cn)) tags as they should. Too ambiguous and unhelpful when it doesn't say where. ←Ben^B4 16:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I use this template for long articles that happen to have one or two references, but which clearly need more than what's already there. I don't consider it redundant to "citation needed." Shalom ^Hello 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - though it doesn't look like it's needed!! :-) It's a very useful template, and valuble with the citation-paranoia that's currently sweeping Wikipedia.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are occasions when I don't have the time to add "section-specific refimprove" or "fact" tags that would be more specifically useful to a constructive editor. This is useful.

In addition it is far better than fact at warning readers about the nature of the article in two senses:

• The article does not provide a means for the user to research a subject more deeply by consulting deeper sources.
• The article may not have been researched and therefore, not be up to WP's high standards. Readers need to be warned.DCDuring 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Per all other keeps. NyyDave 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shalom. There may not be any striking claims in an article that deserve a ((fact)), but the sources listed may clearly not cover all the material given in the article, and other sources that do should be listed. Rigadoun (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Without this you can add ^{[citation needed]} templates all day. Squash Racket 18:08, 20 September 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn The Evil Spartan 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-own1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Uw-own2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Uw-own3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This kind of template is exactly the kind of template that 90% of the time will be used in an edit war, and the few times when it's not, WP:TEMPLAR would likely apply. The Evil Spartan 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now I've encountered multiple newbies who claimed to own articles (in so many words), it's just a misunderstanding. Isn't a template quickly summarizing WP:OWN a helpful thing here? Any template can be used obnoxiously on people who obviously do know about policy, but that shouldn't penalize people who use the template in a good faith and helpful manner. I've seen ((test)) used just to antagonize people, for example. --W.marsh 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, WP:OWN tends to lead to edit wars, but that's no reason to delete the template. Neither is WP:TEMPLAR a reason to delete (IMO, WP:TEMPLAR should have remained an essay). Also, is there any particular reason no discussion was attempted on WT:UW before proposing this for deletion? Anomie 01:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, most certainly, improper use is a reason to speak to the improper user, not to delete, and I've seen plenty of cases where this template is used quite correctly and clears up misunderstandings ("WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE MESSING WITH MY ARTICLE? STOP IT!"). And if the "regulars" are OWNing an article, maybe they should get slapped with a template (along with the trout), they ought to be expected to know better. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, potential misuse of a template during an edit war in not a reason to delete templates, and is the fault of the editors involved and not the templates themselves. I still haven't seen a good reason why regulars can't be templated, and as a rationale that it might be used to against them, is a not reason to delete these templates. ^Khukri 06:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: editors claiming to own articles in blatant ignorance of policy is far more common than nom seems to imagine. It's the sort of thing you encounter a lot working with stubs and wikiproject sorting and cleanup. Anything that involves lots of minor edits to a wide range of articles will provide many opportunities for appropriate use of this template. (I also agree that WP:TEMPLAR should have remained an essay, but that's a separate issue.) Xtifr _tälk 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've used it when new editors seem to resist any corrections to their edits, and need to have a first time notice about teh collaborative community here. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This template is extremely useful when working with new editors who may not be familiar with all of Wikipedia's official policies like WP:OWN. Regardless, WP:TEMPLAR (known as WP:DTTR to many of us) has fluxed back and forth between guideline and essay at least a half-dozen times in the past twenty days (with its latest demotion being ... today!), so I hardly think it should be used as the basis to delete anything until its final consensus status is resolved. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may get used the wrong way sometimes (I myself have never seen it used in an edit war) but it is needed for its legitimate use. Some people simply aren't aware that they can't claim ownership of an article, and need to be told.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:27, 09/21/2007
• Keep - this is very useful and important. Yes this could be abused in an edit war but so could ((uw-vand1)) or ((3rr)). There are people who believe that articles about groups should only be edited by members of those groups[2]. These templates is a gentle but robust correction for them--Cailil ^talk 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are very useful and standard templates. Potential use in edit war cannot be a reason to delete them, everything can be misused in the wrong hands, no need to take it away from those that use it correctly. --Kudret abi^Talk 10:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kepp - this template is useful and important, and comprises part of the templates endorsed by the WP:UW. Everything can be misused. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:28, 23 September 2007 (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.