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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to ((YYYYMMDD)). Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PREVIOUSMONTH.YEAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:NEXTMONTH.YEAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

as a followup to the templates nominated on August 27, these templates are no longer used since it's easier to just use "#time", e.g. ((#time:F Y|((#time:F Y)) +1 month)) instead of ((NEXTMONTHNAME)) ((NEXTMONTH.YEAR)). Frietjes (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except when it isn’t "easier". Since, as of the date of this entry, the current UTC day is August 31, any "easy" substitutive use of #time might break. Another point that might bear repeating is something you might call "mnemonic ease", i.e., the template's name describes what it actually renders inline on the page, in the same sense that "differential-geared leverage-assisted hand-cranked metal cutter adapted for long-term room-temperature durable food packaging" is not as easy to remember as simply, "can opener". And, as it seems to be the case, the reason the templates are "no longer used" is because the user who has nominated them for deletion seems to be the same entity advocating their "replacement", and doing so, instance by instance, with occasionally anomalous results. The proof is in the pudding, which just happens to be on today’s menu, but won’t reappear until Halloween (USA). Cordially but sensibly:
---Schweiwikist (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully useful followup: These "magic word" templates are easier-to-remember/harder to mistype extensions of the mnemonically-useful variables listed here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:H:Current_time_variables
---Schweiwikist (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I see you have a point here given the particular issues with +/-number of months. However, these were never used in isolation. it was always "previous month and year" or "next month and year", so it would be better (in my opinion) to repurpose these as merged templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV Guide 1997 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TV Guide 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NFC, Unacceptable uses of text, complete listings of subjective lists such as these should not be included unless permission has been obtained, otherwise it is a copyright violation. MASEM (t) 21:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like copyvio to me. That's why TV Guide's 100 Greatest Episodes of All-Time only lists top 10, isn't it? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the top 10 of 100 may be a problem, but that's less an issue than the templates. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until the TV Guide people say something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.132.211 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are proactive on copyvio problems. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as a subjective, non-notable grouping. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Islamic Civil Wars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant in view of ((Campaignbox Civil Wars of the Early Caliphates)) and per the reasoning in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 6#Category:Fitna Constantine ✍ 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clubs In The Mid Gippsland Football League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion, doesn't navigate anything. None of the clubs in this league are notable enough for their own article. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, as it navigates nothing. all the articles redirect. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Contributors were roughly evenly divided between support and opposition to the proposed merger of these two templates, and I found no overriding policy reason to favour either either side.
Those favour of merger pointed to the similarity of the templates, and how they could be merged without any loss of existing functionality. Some of those opposed favoured separating the two similar but distinct functions, and other opposers pointed to the server load issues involved in adding complex code to ((Citation needed)), which is allegedly one of most highly-used templates on en.wiki. An alternative suggestion of mergeing ((reference necessary)) into ((citation needed span)) was supported by some editors who opposed the merger discussed here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Reference necessary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Citation needed with Template:Reference necessary.

But with this nomination I disagree. Citation needed is a very heavily used template, and we need something else for spanned texts. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make it simpler by merging? It would be easier for the editor to use citation needed with the parameter than to try to find an obscure template. It's the same thing essentiallly, but with 1 extra parameter to underline text. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support; cant see any reason for "Reference necessary" to be a separate template. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 9#Revival of Merge Discussion for previous discussion. In short, this was done at one point in 2010, then reverted because many people had used the first unnamed parameter to ((citation needed)) as a dummy "reason" parameter. A bot was run to clean things up at the time, but in the two years since then many more examples have probably accumulated.

Also, I note that the proposed code is not good, as it applies the styling with inline CSS rather than using a class styled from MediaWiki:Common.css and it does not properly apply ((unsubst)). Anomie⚔ 04:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a better version at ((citation needed/sandbox)) two years ago. It's been severely messed about with, but this was the last clean version. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What in the. Just redirect the latter to the former. In the scheme of things, the minor loss of semantics from <600 transclusions of the latter template will have little effect on the encyclopedia, and isn't worth some TfD-motivated alteration of a template with >250,000 transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't that cause text to disappear from the rendered article for those 600 transclusions? Anomie⚔ 13:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it would: The moon orbits the earth, and ((reference necessary|is made of green cheese|date=August 2012)). → The moon orbits the earth, and ^{[citation needed]}; if redirected, you'd get The moon orbits the earth, and ^{[citation needed]}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ((Reference necessary)) into ((citation needed span)), or the other way around, I don't mind; keep ((citation needed)) as is. I'd like to mention that this TfD was raised not long after comments were posted at Template talk:Citation needed#Unverified information concerning a desire to show just which text a citation was needed for. See posting by Ebe123 19:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC) and subsequent. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The parameter would be optional, and it would not require the new parameter. It should be "((#if:(({1|))}|<span style="border-bottom: 1px #CCC dotted;">(({1|))}</span>))" ~~Ebe123~~ → report 15:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We should use ((citation needed)) at the end of each sentence of a lengthy unsourced paragrapgh if it is fully unsourced. The use of ((reference necessary)) enables to mark the entire paragraph as unsourced with just a single template.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why shouldn't they be merged? Both are to mark unreferenced text. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sometimes you might want to mark just a part of a paragraph as needing a citation and ((Reference necessary)) would do that for you. I don't see why these templates should be merged. —Compdude¹²³ 05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why shouldn't they be merged? I am proposing an optional parameter to Citation needed, it is only optional. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge makes sense. benzband (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for the same reason. Pokajanje|Talk 01:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as long as ((Citation needed)) is given the option of underlining a chunk of problematic text, which is the current purpose of ((Reference necessary)); if people refuse this change, then oppose. As a contributor to the Chinese Wikipedia, where marking problematic content with an underline is the preferred method as opposed to spamming "citation needed" (since it makes it clearer exactly what part of the text is problematic), I personally prefer to be very specific and clear when I tag unreferenced content on enwiki as well. (Though I personally prefer the style of ((Citation needed span)), which clearly highlights problematic text as opposed to underlining it. Unreferenced claims should be pointed out obviously so people don't take uncited material for definite facts.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to clarify what I mean by being clear and specific, compare these two lines:

Adolf Hitler was born in Austria, and is a woman^{[citation needed]}.

Adolf Hitler was born in Austria, and is a woman^{[citation needed]}.

Which is clearer as to what the problematic, unreferenced text is? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point precisely. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. TBrandley 17:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would all users (IP/unreg'd) see the underline span? If so, this isn't the right solution, as I can tell that it is very easy to make an article distracting with the underline. That said, it is completely reasonable if the underline could be part of a CSS class, and have some type of Gadget that can enable/disable it for registered users to correct. The current "citation needed" is completely appropriate for random readers as it is not distracting. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is to make it distracting, so people don't take unsubstantiated claims as fact. We mark these things for readers' sake as well, not just for our own administrative editing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with that idea. The cn tag is misused by many editors to start with ("oh, look, there only one citation at the end of this paragraph, that means none of the other sentences are sourced, let me tag all those!"), so this is going to lead to a lot of unchecked, mostly underlined articles. It's also contrary that we generally hide deals of how WP works "behind the scenes", but add short, non-disruptive notes to encourage readers to help out. I don't think its our place to mark things up with underlines to say "hey, this might not be true"; the CN tag already does that on its own. The way that I thought I was reading this was for editors to mark spans of text that needed citations, but if its meant to try to alert the reader, it's absolutely unnecessary; our general disclaimers already warn users of the reliability of WP's statements, even those cited to reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Underling spanning would be optional; the standard procedure would still be adding ((cn)) to the end of a particular line. It's up to the editor which to use, and both options are made available, but we would officially recommend the usual way of doing it. If cn tags are being misused, then those behaviours should be addressed separately; editors doing these things doesn't necessarily mean that cn-spanning would be abused in the same manner as well, and as a result we should not use cn-spanning at all. The point of cn-spanning instead of cn-ing is that in cases where we need to be more specific, we can be more specific. It's an available option that doesn't have to be used, but it can be used when needed. As for the disclaimer, it wouldn't hurt (i.e. "do no harm") to put in another additional warning for readers, would it? More warnings provide better assurance then less warnings, right? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If its optional and up to editors, it is not going to be very effective. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for an internal means (that doesn't affect presentation to the non-registered reader) of tagging spans of text that need citations for editors to use as guides to sourcing. I just think that an end user, unaware of what the underline is (even if there is a "citation needed" that follows it) will mis-interpret it as an important statement, particularly if the use is not consistent as you say it would be optional. Furthermore, the longer the span, the more distracting that underline is. We already warn users that WP should not be considered a reliable source, and if we're actually looking for users to help out with citations, there's maintenance page and section headers that can be used. I don't see the problem internally if editors want to set a preference or use a gadget to show underlines on such spans, but that's all internal to WP's improvement and not a factor the reader needs to see. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Unnecessary. Just keep ((citation needed)) as-is. Bwrs (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose or Merge ((Reference necessary)) into ((citation needed span)), or the other way around (but not merge that combo into 'citation needed'). Yes, it does make sense logically to do all this, but I am concerned about the complexity of the template ((citation needed)) since it is so heavily used - what are the implications of adding so much new code? Also the information above by Anomie about previous history on this topic and problems that arose. Finally, this is not a simple merge, someone is going to have to sandbox and test a version and see it through the process of coding, testing, rolling out and monitoring for problems - again, this is one of the most heavily used templates on Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: these are redundant, and joining them may help with tagging more precisely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakly oppose; if I understand correctly, nothing is broken at the moment as a result of having two templates, and merging them is going to take a significant amount of work that could be better spent on doing something actually useful. But if someone feels a calling to do that particular work, and can do a good job of it, I wouldn't stand in their way. Victor Yus (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ref needed into the wider-used and simpler to operate cn. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Merging ((reference necessary)) into ((citation needed span)) is sufficient. Adding it into ((citation needed)) would produce a lot of unintended side effects (as Anomie points out), and I'm concerned about adding additional complexity to a template that is used so frequently, as that just screams flirting with template limits. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Hi. I see no problem with merging ((citation needed span)) into ((Reference necessary)) (I oppose vice versa) but I oppose merging them into ((Citation needed)). Doing so demands a vast change in the entire Wikipedia article namespace, editor's usage pattern as well as bots, automated scripts and Wiki browsers developed for Wikipedia. This would mean re-educating users and a colossal unnecessary server overload. Let's let the sleeping devil sleep. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per User:Anomie, User:Victor Yus and User: Codename Lisa.--Sum (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ((reference necessary)) and ((citation needed span)) into ((citation needed)) with a parameter to create the appearance of ((citation needed span)). Codename Lisa is exaggerating wildly. ((reference necessary)) is used only 563 times at present; ((citation needed span)) 323! The highlighted style would start actually being used if it were an option in the standard template and documented there appropriately, and that is nothing but a good thing. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge What is the difference between these two??? Lova Falk talk 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • ((citation needed span)) may simply replace ((citation needed)) right away:

Claim.<sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (August 2012)">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>

<sup class="Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from August 2012">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup>

So the only problem is the optional unnamed argument of ((citation needed)), and it can be solved with a bot or even manually with a maintenance category and a grace period of 7 days or so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is ((citation needed)) used? I recall that in the past the job queue has had trouble even correctly queuing up changes (i.e. adding the maintenance category) to templates having extreme numbers of transclusions, and I don't know if that has ever been fixed. Anomie⚔ 19:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would set the maintenance category from with ((citation needed)). Then the transclusions can be purged with

for PAGENAME in $(cat pages); do ftp "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title="$PAGENAME"&action=purge"; done

and a category is populated. Am I missing something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the job queue doesn't do it, then IIRC a purge wouldn't do it either. You'd need a null edit, or use the API's action=purge&forcelinkupdate. Then the question is how will you avoid the hitmen the sysadmins would send after you for null editing a quarter of a million pages? Anomie⚔ 21:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question of time, as I see it. Or may be it is more practical to download and grep the pages to search for this pattern. Hope sysadmins wouldn't send a hitman after me if I download a quarter of million pages within a week and then edit those several using deprecated syntax. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't download a quarter of a million pages. Use Wikipedia:Database download. Anomie⚔ 02:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I almost think it would be better all around to just use |text= or something, rather than the first unnamed parameter. Less conflict with existing use, and no worry about stray "=" screwing things up. Anomie⚔ 02:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Anomie says makes sense, and could work. Though the big issue now is probably all those bots that Codename Lisa was talking about below, how would we solve that problem? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented |text= in ((citation needed span)) and ((reference necessary)), and included all uses of |1= there in Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters. May your bot clean up this backlog? Once done, the ((citation needed span)) may safely replace ((citation needed)) (the style of ((reference necessary)) may then be implemented via site-wide stylesheet if for some reason this would be found needed or even preferable). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this TFD gets closed such that the merge should be done, then AnomieBOT may do it. Anomie⚔ 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hex

Am I really exaggerating? Have you though about bots and automated browsers that delete the whitespace between the last character and ((Citation needed))? They need to be re-written. What do you say about bots and automated browsers that discard invalid parameters? Just replace all instances of ((Citation needed span)) with ((Citation needed)) and soon bots and automated browsers will discard contents for which a citation is required, inciting a Wiki-edit war between the man and the machine! They need to be re-written too. There will be complexity, all for nothing. You say there is only 323 instance; do you really think attending to only one or two of these conflicts is easy? Beside you forgot the most important factor: Uneducated wiki-human edit-wars when he is not aware of recent changes.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any bot or program that goes around removing "unrecognized" parameters from maintenance templates? Anomie⚔ 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll check my watchlist items and let you know. (I don't go around memorizing bot's names or tools names, you know.) But for some reason, the phrase "Peer Rev" keeps flashing in my mind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really exaggerating?

Ahem:

a vast change... colossal unnecessary server overload.

Yes.

inciting a Wiki-edit war between the man and the machine! ... There will be complexity, all for nothing.

Calm down, dear. Bots get rewritten all the time, because this is not a static environment. If one started misbehaving it would simply be deactivated until it was updated to function correctly. And if you think coping with whitespace or parameters is a problem, well... you're obviously not a programmer. (I am.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you really are a programmer, you should know that one of the seven sins of software development is to implement a change with zero benefit for the end-user that demands implementations efforts and has a breakage potential. So what if we merged both? People would still need to edit the article to use the text-highlighting aspect of the template. That's zero benefit for the end-user. I see Codename hasn't yet posted the name of bot, script, tool or whatever that commits the said mischief but none of you also bother denying such behavior being in existence. (Actually, I suspect I saw such a thing.) So, I assume there is both change needed and breakage potential. Also I see you guys ignored his or her comment on the matter of education needed. Maybe you hope by ignoring it, it won't happen? Cheers. 91.99.235.147 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dear chap (I shall assume that you are someone that has forgotten to log in, rather than a person hiding behind the burnished shield of anonymity), there is certainly not zero benefit: by reducing the number of templates available, editing becomes easier. In your haste to lecture me on The Wisdom Of The Ancients, you fell victim to one of the classic blunders - misunderstanding your users. Wikipedia is not divided, dystopically, into Eloi and Morlocks. Our editors are our readers, and our readers are our editors, and all of them are users. What benefits one benefits the other. Making it easier to edit is a key element of the Foundation's long-term goal of attracting and retaining editors. Having to memorize numerous subtly different templates is not a usability improvement.

Neither of your points are really an argument against this, either. People would still need to edit the article to use the text-highlighting aspect of the template - that's not under debate here; the proposal is to roll this functionality into the standard template as an option for those who want it. And regarding the matter of education - perhaps you weren't aware, but templates have documentation? — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. You have assumed a lot of things which might be completely wrong, although you don't seem willing to listen to opposition. So be it. 91.99.232.51 (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW this category lists the pages where ((citation needed span)) and ((reference necessary)) are used as ((citation needed)) (with no text to highlight). Currently this is about 20% of all the use cases of these templates, so the usage patterns of these templates already intersect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but merge ((reference necessary)) into ((citation needed span)). --Matthiasb (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Further comment: I don't consider modifying ((citation needed)) an optimal solution, since that template might be used with the same syntax in several other Wikipedia language versions so playing with the syntax might cause odd things if articles are copied/imported and translated. (Do they have those templates in simple English WP?) --Matthiasb (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the proposal only requires additional parameter |text= to ((citation needed)) – both ((reference necessary)) and ((citation needed span)) require |text=. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - It's a very useful template and i can see it being much more useful to a lot of editors for clarifying exactly what the issue is. When ((cn)) is used you see everything before tagged and may feel you have to find a reference for an entire paragraph rather than the single line originally tagged. This is the more useful template and it should be kept at all costs. I'm not completely opposed to a merge but it depends on what is lost by the process. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No functionality of either template is lost. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then i change my opinion to Support merge. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any tempering with ((citation needed)). Solution in search of a problem; even worse, this solution has some massive breakage potential. No opinion on merging the other two. T. Canens (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was merge ((Reference necessary)) into ((citation needed span)). There was overwhelming support for this proposal, and all of those who expressed a preference for which direction to merge preferred to keep ((citation needed span)).
However, some concerns were expressed about the nature of the highlighting used, and further discussion may be needed on that point. I will not attempt to implement this merger myself, and will ask the nominator to make the necessary changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference necessary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Citation needed span (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Reference necessary with Template:Citation needed span.
The templates should be merged into ((Reference necessary)) as they serve the same function, but with a different graphical representation. The differences in the templates could be merged and a new parameter can be created. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 13:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With this nomination I agree. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support; "Reference necessary" and "Citation needed span" are almost identical. Should be merged. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The "span" template should be deprecated: it was an idea which never took off, and it does not benefit the project to continue to harbour barely-used alternatives to the regular ((cn)) which, by and large, works fine as it is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are cases it really is useful, such as this:

"Joe went to XYZ College (1985-1990)^{[citation needed]}"

In this example the cite is not for the fact he went to College, but for the dates. So something like this:

"Joe went to XYZ College (1985-1990^{[citation needed]})"

..but another editor thought it looked funny (it does) and moved the cite back outside the paren. The perfect application of span:

"Joe went to XYZ College (1985-1990)^{[citation needed]}"

Much better. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly surprising that the idea never took off, it's not listed on any of the pages that Wikipedia:Template messages links to, in fact, there are just 11 pages in wp namespace that link to it, helpdesk or village pump archives and templates for disc / deletions. How was this supposed to take off, , by ESP perhaps? Ssscienccce (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I use ((citation needed)), ((reference necessary)), and ((cn-span)) frequently, and none of them replace the other. The only merge I'd support, if any, is the second with the third.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what's being discussed here: merging ((reference necessary)) and ((cn-span)). —Compdude¹²³ 05:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to the merging as well for the time being. I actually like the ((cn-span)) background color to get the attention of the reader in order to add the necessary references supporting the claims.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support those two templates are pretty much the same; I don't get why there's two of them. I would say that we should keep ((reference necessary)) because the way it signifies text needing sources is more subtle than ((cn-span))'s way of doing it. —Compdude¹²³ 05:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional merge, see #Template:Citation needed section above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Both templates are pretty much used in the same way. I personally would prefer the highlighting of ((Citation needed span)) over the underlining of ((Reference necessary)), however. I think the highlighting looks more aesthetically pleasing, and also does a better job of marking problematic text. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – this makes more sense than redesigning the ((citation needed)) template to make it mergeable with ((reference necessary)). Bwrs (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, agree with Bwrs. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: obviously redundant. I would note, that I'd prefer the styling of ((citation needed span)) (I don't actually spot the underlining of ((reference necessary))), and the name "citation needed span" is easier to remember; it also makes relation to ((citation needed)) more obvious. All in all I would just redirect ((reference necessary)) to ((citation needed span)) and consider the matter resolved. BTW, isn't it time to close this discussion? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC) updated 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ((reference necessary)) into ((citation needed span)). Both templates have the same exact purpose, so they should be combined. I strongly prefer keeping ((citation needed span))'s coloring, though, as users who selected the "always underline links" option in Special:Preferences (there are a few of us still around!) can't see the dotted underline at all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to always underline links? They're blue for reason... —Compdude¹²³ 04:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have problematic screens, some people are colour-blind, some people have nostalgia... there are many valid reasons as to why people use always underline links. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly find any appeal in the no-underlines look. (In fact, seeing the lack of underlines is a good warning that I got logged out and that I need to log back in). In any case, it is given as an option in Special:Preferences (it was the default way back in 2005, when I joined), and still supported, so there is no need to induce unneeded breakage. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support merge. the purpose is basically the same, so better to merge them for consistency. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into ((citation needed span)) - the coloration is a good thing, Titoxd makes a good point about underlining, and I'd hope this could be a step towards later merging that template into ((citation needed)). — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone previously asked what Wikipedia readers and non-registered editors see: the 'reference necessary' text is underlined, and the 'citation needed span' text appears to be grayed out. Since an underline is normally used for emphasis, I think that graying it out is a better way to mark unsourced material. 66.87.2.25 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not grayed out; it's enclosed in a pink box. The moon is roughly spherical and is made of green cheese^{[citation needed]} with a high albedo. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did someone change the code recently? It wasn't like that the last time I remember seeing it... or is it my imagination? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There have been several recent changes to Template:Citation needed span and to Template:Fix-span, but these were to to with the categorisation, the message, and whether the ((Tfm-inline)) should be visible in articles or not. The background-color #fff9f9   and border-color #ffdcdc   are set by ((fix-span)), and these haven't changed since 7 November 2010. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously. I have no opinion on whether a parameter to control the graphical representation is desirable, but the merge will surely help by preventing representations to be different except in the cases where this is intented. --Chealer (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge, for reduced overwhelmingness. —Quiddity (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Right to Censor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just about passes WP:NENAN's rule-of-thumb of five entries, but nonetheless seems redundant given that the body of each of these articles could/should link to each of the others, and that this particular grouping didn't play an especially major role in the careers of any of the wrestlers involved. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Five just seems too small a number to justify the packaging, especially considering the nominator's point about redundancy. I would argue the angle was majorly significant to Stevie Richards' career (though a relative blip in the others'), but that does not warrant a template. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:26, 6 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox sports announcer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just 43 transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox person)), with only three additional parameters (I've just removed a fourth, per WP:EL). Should be merged; or made a module of that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a useful enough application of module support. I've converted the template to a wrapper. Whether or not to keep the wrapper is still up for debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, the rewrite as a wrapper is the best option for now. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Dalai Lama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 18 transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox monarch)) or ((Infobox officeholder)), for which it could be made a wrapper before SUBSTing. The various name parameters can become an unbulletted list of "native names" with ((lang)) templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (Respectful) Oppose Unlike a monarch or a political officeholder, the Dalai Lama is also a religious leader; therefore, I think this infobox is unique and (despite relatively-few transclusions, for obvious reasons) should be kept. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether DLs are political leaders, religious leaders, or both, is not the issue. The issue is which infobox best suits the purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge with ((Infobox Pope)) and ((Infobox Coptic Pope)) under a new ((Infobox Denominational Head)). It seems to me that heads of religious denominations have certain traits in common, whether their respective denominations are Christian, Buddhist, or otherwise. These Infoboxes aren't that bad as they are, but maybe an Infobox Denominational Head would be more concise. It's hard to say for sure. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike popes, though, like it or not the Dalai Lama is a political (as well as a religious) leader; this, I believe, makes his position unique in the world today. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but please see my comment, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose merge for now. first rewrite it as a frontend to say ((infobox religious leader)) or similar. it's not clear that a complete merger is the best option here. given that we have Template:Infobox Christian leader, I don't see why this is any different. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed by (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently unused by any articles. Beland (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition, I think the feature of hiding the unsourced text, which is what defines this template as opposed to other related templates is unnecessary at best. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep First note that the apparent lack of usage is mostly due to expired template instances that have been deleted by bot (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-26/Technology report); actual template usage is thus underestimated and difficult to gauge. Secondly, when dealing with unreferenced material, if a citation isn't added, the traditional simple (and often simplistic) choices are to remove it, or could be ((fact)) tagged. The latter action is too commonplace, given Category:Articles with unsourced statements is bordering on 300k. The former action often discourages editors who may be adding valid material, but still needed to include the citation (WP:AGF). A happier medium would be to tag it, give editors a certain time to add referencing and failing that to keep unref material from sitting there indefinitely after it is challenged. The template helps meet WP:V without falling into WP:BATHWATER. Dl2000 (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is functionally different from other templates. While its use may be limited, by its definition it will go away after time so we will naturally see less use of it. That doesn't make it any less necessary. I can see having it around.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep like we've never kept before That's exactly what I need! I'd have been using it for years if someone had mentioned it existed. I'm often torn between CNing and deleting. When I choose to tag, I forget it's there and nobody touches the page for months or years. If I choose to delete, I feel like I might be burning truth. If I verify and cite it myself and barely cared in the first place, I feel like a slave. This doodad gives the best of both worlds. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: What Paul says makes sense - of course there will be few articles that use it, because the point of the template is to eventually reduce the number of pages using it in the long run. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to it’s inherent nature, there won’t be many articles with this template being used! I agree, I didn’t know this existed and it should be used more often as long as a reasonable amount of time is given to rectify the missing citation. This gives a follow up/deadline to “citation needed” on questionable statements. Pmedema (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2012 (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.