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) 03:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Montauban squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

blank. Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 22 October 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) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBL Ladder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NBL Ladder/2007-08 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:22, 22 October 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) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linked on Google News (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

bot hasn't run in about 3 years, could move to a subpage of the bot's userspace. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 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) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Hunt3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I merged these templates into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Your City/hunt. we could merge the history of template:hunt, although it was created by the same author as template:hunt3, which I moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Your City/hunt before merging it. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 22 October 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) 03:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox N.J. Cabinet2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I merged this fork here, so it is no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 22 October 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 deleted per WP:CSD#T3- it has shown up now! JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:'''Blessy's Sandbox!''' (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This has had a speedy template for more than seven days. It does not show up in the deletion categories. Odd? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:44, 22 October 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) 03:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Television Academy Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links in the template take you to Indian Television Academy Awards as all articles were merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Television Academy Awards. Template should hence be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All links in the template are to articles which have been deleted as non-notbale, and are now redirects to the main article for the awards. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:35, 22 October 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 here. Further discussion concerning redirection or reconfiguration or renaming can, of course, continue elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maths rating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rename and reconfigure as a standard WikiProject banner for consistence and ease of editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No need, and the standard one uses the term importance in place of the preferable priority. --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC

The needs is as I have stated and "importance" the same as "priority". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that that is a "need". "Importance" is not the same as "priority". Labeling specialist topics as "low-importance" is an untoward value judgment; calling them "low-priority" is much more neutral. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need because it is an anomaly that editors are not aware of. The issues of the value judgement applies to all WikiProjects. Why is mathematics so sensitive about the semantics anyway? Also, the terms are used within the narrow confines of a WikiProject so it should not be an issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics has many more highly specialized articles than most areas represented in Wikipedia, and editors who care deeply about those topics. Yes, certainly, this ought to be changed globally — "priority" would be the better word everywhere. However it would need considerable effort to overcome inertia in all the other projects. The math project already has it right, and I object to going to a more general framework that is wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am completely sympathetic to the plight you describe. BTW, Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment does not allow for the "importance" parameter to be displayed for the reasons you describe. I have no energy to fight the battle to get it changed since change is well nigh impossible on Wikipedia and I there are some editors that make WP difficult enough for me as it is.

I don't agree with you in saying that maths is more highly specialised than other topic areas and I would like to think other WikiProjects also have editors who care deeply about their topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say math was more specialized. I said it has more highly-specialized Wikipedia articles. That's just a fact. Physics is the only close competitor. Anyway, I agree; other projects have specialized articles their editors care about (just not as many of them), and they should probably want to use priority as well, but they haven't gotten around to it. Let them, if they want to. In the meantime I oppose a uniformity that takes us in the wrong direction. --Trovatore (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's a minor headache to remember the mathematics-project pidgin when adding project boxes to areas such as algorithms and statistics, which also have other projects. While I acknowledge his concern's soundness, Trovatore should take his argument to a project focused on templates. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If, as the nominator says, the effects are within "the narrow confines of a WikiProject", then the right place to debate what the fields should be is surely in that WikiProject itself. Of course WikiProject Math does not own any pages, not even this template; nevertheless, it is an extraordinary thing to override a project's internal classification scheme in TfD. I see no sufficient justification for that here. --Trovatore (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was about to notify the WikiProject but I see that it is already done. I would argue that template discussion of this nature is of no concern to the maths WikiProject since it goes beyond their purview. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can it be beyond their purview? Classifying these articles is a big part of what the project does. The classification is for the use of the project, in terms of helping project members direct their efforts, and is done according to the project's specific criteria. It really is of no concern to anyone not interested in the project. --Trovatore (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)To coin a phrase: "No WikiProject is an island". It is up to the community at large to discuss something of interest to the whole community. Consistency in WukiProject template use is of interest to every editor that adds or maintains them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no interest in the maths WikiProject on the whole but I come across maths related articles that need templates. That makes me interested in the template usage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The ratings have one purpose — to help direct the efforts of editors interested in improving mathematics articles. If you are not interested in contributing to mathematics articles, why would you not just ignore the ratings? If you are interested, why would you not apply the specific criteria worked out by the project? --Trovatore (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wanted to added a "field" paramenter to Talk:Cantellated 7-cube but since it is non-standard I had to go off and figure out how to do it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, well that should be easy enough to fix. CBM can probably fix it pretty easily so that the standard name is an alias, so that it's compatible. You don't need to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. Would it satisfy you if all the standard template fields are supported as aliases, and the standard name is a redirect? --Trovatore (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, it appears that what Alan Liefting is saying is that the parameter "field" is non-standard, not that it simply has a different name in other banners. So, it looks like he's saying we should move over to a standard banner so that he won't be tempted to populate non-standard parameters in ours... RobHar (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok, so what is being proposed is that all maths rating templates should be changed to look exactly like all other (useless, IMHO) Wikiproject banners?! I am not compelled—in fact I am outright repelled—by the argument to change to a template that is less functional than the one we use now because it makes editing easier for bag and tag editors. The tail is wagging the dog here... Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Not a very humble opinion. How do you measure the usefulness of a banner? Perhaps by the quality of articles that result? Consider these statistics on the best articles in three projects and Wikipedia-wide. For math, the figure depends on whether you count all the articles in List of mathematics articles (about 28,000) or only the ones that have been tagged.

Percent of articles in given class

	Mathematics	Geology	Physics	Wikipedia
FA-class	0.23 or 0.15	0.40	0.28	0.11
GA-class	0.34 or 0.13	0.57	0.32	0.43

Other projects seem to manage pretty well with their "useless" banners. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this argument quite puzzling. It's not as though nearly GA articles are sitting out there waiting to be tagged. It's unfortunate but true that many mathematics articles will never be GA/FA. I'm sure the same could be said of physics and geology articles as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.k., then what is your measure of the usefulness of a project template? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to have a quantitative measure of "usefulness". But I am baffled that a scientist would think that the above table somehow proves that the template used by other Wikiprojects are more useful. Do you claim to prove a causal connection between the template and the percentage of GA and FA articles? If so, your statistical methodology is clearly flawed. For one thing, among all possible concepts in geology, what frequency are likely to pass the good article criteria? What frequency of the corresponding mathematics articles are likely to? I'm willing to bet that the frequency is much lower in the latter rather than the former.

Also, you have clearly cherry-picked your evidence. Even assuming that the higher frequency of GA/FA articles in geology and physics is connected with the template (a dubious proposition), what works for geology and physics might not work for chemistry, psychology, or sociology—or mathematics. Have you done a systematic study of all Wikiprojects to determine that the standardized template is actually superior?

I find all of this a bit untenable. Speaking from experience, the only thing that actually influences GA/FA status of articles is knowledgable editors willing to dedicate hundreds of hours their time to participate in the process. Certainly no idiotic template is going to influence someone to do this, and the claim that whether some parameters agree with a standard that other Wikiprojects have adopted is totally absurd. The templates only organize ratings systems within the Wikiproject. As long as that content is well-organized and accessible, I don't see how you can possibly complain about it. This was my counterpoint: GA/FA articles do not "spring into existence" because the articles were somehow "discovered" and "tagged". It actually does take work, which as far as I can tell has no connection with the template. I also want to add that I strongly suspect that the process of achieving GA/FA is essentially stacked against most mathematical topics, having participated in it personally on several occasions. This is evidenced by the extraordinary number of "former FA" articles, and the general lack of continued willingness to participate on the part of project members.

I am also baffled by the argument that a template offering less functionality would in fact be more useful to the WikiProject. This is the point of my original post. Please answer: how will removing the "field=" parameter make this template more useful for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Mathematics? Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating any change in the ((maths rating)) template - as should be clear from my vote below. Nor am I trying to do anything scientific. I just object to your smug assertion that the template everyone else uses is "useless" - an assertion that doesn't seem to be based on any facts at all. The only purpose of my table is to suggest that it is not obvious which template is better, and it wouldn't hurt to think about it dispassionately. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think WPMATH needs a standard banner, but this ratings banner is something that all projects should also have, so there should be two banners, one for assessing quality and page type (ie. template/article/category), another for assessing project categorization (ie. field) priority and importance (which should be separate parameters, since while something might be low importance, it could be high priority due to commonness, or vice versa) Indeed the conflating of page-type and page-quality in the standard WPBANNERMETA is very unfortunate. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I find this discussion at this venue highly inappropriate. How a WikiProject organizes and operates its templates, is an internal matter for the WikiProject. The proper place to discuss major changes to this template would the Wikiproject talk page. Moreover, the "maths rating" template has a different use than other WikiProject banner, in that it is not used to identify whether articles fall within the scope of the project (WPMath uses establishes its scope through the category mathematics). As such, it should only appear on articles that have been assessed by the project. Consequently, there is no need for drive by editors from other projects to ever add the template. (Note, that I do not necessarily agree with this practice, but it has been the long standing consensus within that project.)TR 15:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate: (iteration, maths - sorry. ) a WikiProject does not exist in isolation. Editors who are not otherwise involved come into contact with it as I have recently done. Therefore it is best to have consistence between all WikiProjects. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you tag an article with the banner of a given WikiProject, you are implicitly acting on behalf of that project. You're welcome to do that, of course; there are no restrictions on membership. But don't you think, if you're going to do that, you should make the effort to find out how the project does these things? --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there could also be a project banner which would be a distinct template that follows a similar syntax to other Wikiproject banners. However, these exist mainly for tagging articles as within the purview of different projects. WPM already has a bot that does this, with no need for templates. So an additional template (separate from ((maths rating))) is fine, but redundant with the bot. The "maths rating" template contains more information than standard Wikiproject templates do. So the proposed deletion seems (to me) to be saying: "Let's have less functionality for the Wikiproject in the name of greater uniformity for editors." I'm going to say "No" to that proposition, absent a very clear refutation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Tim about summarizes my own views as well. TfD is not the appropriate venue to determine what the internal consensus is in WPM. And I think it's too blunt an instrument for trying to get consensus on how the template can be improved. It would be better to make suggestions at WT:WPM, generally quite a responsive project, as the editors there are the most knowledgable about how mathematics articles are organized within that project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The arguments for change seem to involve removing useful functionality because people who aren't interested in the project want to mess around with templates intended for project participants. Exactly why should someone not interested in the project be setting maths templates? I don't think that is very convincing. A person doing such stuff should just live with whatever each project wants and if they want change they should try proposing something useful to the project. As it is there is a project template Template:WikiProject Environment and possibly others which such people might study to see if there is a commonality in ideas among such large projects. and then figure out some way to help them as a group if they are really desperate for a standard interface. Dmcq (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It plainly isn't appropriate for one particular WikiProject to opt out of using the rating systems that every other part of the encyclopedia somehow manages to shoehorn its content into in favour of a subtly different one. Nonetheless, it's probably better that the transition plan for this be discussed in advance at said WikiProject, rather than forced through at TfD. As for why "outsiders" (gasp! shock! call a constable!) should ever care about this template: very nearly everyone working on this encyclopedia is an "outsider" to the maths project, and yet occasionally people will want to climb over the wall into that particular garden in order to, y'know, help improve the articles under its purview. Would that they did not have to, as KW suggests, "remember the mathematics-project pidgin" in addition to the one that everyone else uses for the sake of some minor semantic quibbling over the labels used in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps members of this Wikiproject have been unclear. The issue is certainly not that we want to opt out of the rating system. I am aware that a few members of WPM are rather hostile to the WP 1.0 &c efforts to rate articles, but I think such editors are a definite minority. Rather the issue seems (to me) to be that we are here being asked to change to a template that lacks the "field=" parameter. This is a vital parameter for the proper functioning of the WikiProject, regardless of anyone's opinion about the agenda of people in the project. Any proposal that (appears to) remove this parameter is an immediate no-go. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • why? RockMagnetist (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles are sorted based on the field parameter in the WikiProject's WP1.0 assessment tables. This makes browsing the lists much easier. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it isn't necessary to rename this article. Just change ((WikiProject Mathematics)) into a redirect to ((Maths rating)). Since the latter template treats importance and priority as synonyms, it isn't really any different from a typical WikiProject X template. The main purpose of having a different name is to press editors into always providing values for these fields. However, you only have to glance at the Mathematics assessment table to see that they don't. Other projects such as Physics and Geology manage to maintain a near-100% assessment rating with the usual template. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, Chemistry assessment has 777 completely unassessed articles out of 6321. Clearly, that kind of statistic has little to do with what banner is being used. Furthermore, ~150 unassessed articles out of ~10000 is a 98.5% coverage rate; that's pretty near to 100% if you ask me. RobHar (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the statistic has little to do with what banner is being used. That was in fact the point I was making. So why not redirect ((WikiProject Mathematics))? It might satisfy those who don't like the ((maths rating)) name without changing the way the template works. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway, those statistics are based on the assessment table. If the figure of 28,320 is accepted for the total of all mathematics articles, then about 18,000 of those are unrated by this project. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I agree that it would be a good idea to redirect ((WikiProject Mathematics)), with a namespace processor choosing to direct it to ((maths rating)) or ((maths banner)) as appropriate. Nat2 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – It is sufficient to redirect to the template from the standard name. The WikiProject itself would probably be a better venue than TfD to discuss whatever changes you propose be made to the template itself, because they are the ones who use it every day. —Joshua Issac (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just as a note, using ((WPBannerMeta)) would not necessarily destroy any functionality. Some time ago, someone wrote ((maths rating)) using ((WPBannerMeta)), as you can see at the former's sandbox in such a way that it had a working field parameter and always displayed 'priority' in place of 'importance.' So we could use that option if we wanted to. However, I don't think that it is necessary to do so. Also, in the interest of context, it might be interesting to see the arguments given in similar discussions preserved on the talk page (under 'Suggested move' and 'Meta Banner'). Nat2 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but there's also ((maths banner)) for non-article pages... so any reformatting of ((WikiProject Mathematics)) should include a namespace processor to activate ((maths rating)) (articles) or ((maths banner)) (project/portal space) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the original creator of the template and all the blame for the name of the template can be directed at me. At the time it was created there was no agreed cross-project system for project template names and I just picked the first name which occurred without any particular rational and with a UK bias (maths rather than math). I can't see any real problem with changing the name to match the rest of wikipedia, it might take a few weeks for mathematics editors to get use to the change but thats no big deal. I can see benefits for editors outside the project most people would recognise the name ((WikiProject Mathematics)) as a project banner, but may not quite know what ((maths rating)) is. There are some useful things in the way the template works, which might not be in ((WPBannerMeta)), categorisation of vital article and frequently view maths articles helps us identify articles which really need work. These could probably be worked in to a version dependant on ((WPBannerMeta)), but I can't see any advantage, we don't really need the other features it offers. --Salix (talk): 23:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and redirect ((WikiProject Mathematics)). I don't think there is any reason not to use the standard name; as Salix said, the wasn't chosen to be different. It was chosen to be as helpful as possible. But we don't need to move this template; it works perfectly fine. Nat2 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started a separate discussion on the redirect idea at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#A_suggested_redirect. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't see any problem with it. But I see some WP:SNOW. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming to Template:WikiProject Mathematics. New Page Patrollers need to be able to find the damn WikiProject banners in order to put them on articles. If they are all titled "Template:WikiProject x", you can find them very easily. If they aren't, you have to spend time digging them out. There are currently about 250,000 articles on en.wp that are not tagged as being part of a WikiProject. If we want to fix this, we need to make it easier and more consistent for new page patrollers to tag them. That way the hopefully passionate editors in those WikiProjects can improve and monitor new articles that come in. So, yes, huff and puff about how WikiProjects are all independent. But if you actually want people who aren't involved in those WikiProjects to tag articles in those WikiProjects, that is made a lot easier by being consistent. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging articles as being part of WPM is actually unnecessary, as already mentioned above. The project actually doesn't want this template used as a project tag. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, having people who don't know much math (like random NPPs) rate math articles (for field and importance particularly) isn't a goal of WPM. Let Wikiproject US, GibraltarpediA, and so forth overtag all they want. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A redirect suffices. Ozob (talk) 21:30, 28 October 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.