Template:Expand – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Expand (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) To quote what I said in the TFD: Literally every time I've seen this template used, the "discussed on the talk page" segment has been entirely overlooked — it's just been used as a simple drive-by tagging, no more[…]Discussion on the template talk page turns up points such as "This template tends to hang around on articles for years and doesn't seem to have any encouraging effect on expansion" — exactly what I've witnessed on the many articles I, myself, used to drive-by tag until I began reverting my own taggings[…]Just saying "this article needs expansion" and not elaborating is not helpful, and even counter-productive in that it adds nothing but another maintenance template that nobody ever takes care of. I've been here since December 2005 and the only times I have ever seen an ((expand)) template remedied are the times that I did it myself. I feel that the TFD was closed way prematurely and should've witnessed (at the worst) a relist since there ~~was really only one !vote that had any weight to it (the "keep" was WP:ITSUSEFUL and the only other participant didn't really !vote either way).~~ were only two !votes. In the past, there have been plenty of arguments going both ways about whether this template should be deleted or kept; as divisive as this template is, a TFD for it shouldn't simply be brushed off so fast with minimal activity. Overturn and relist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] There's nothing wrong with a ITSUSEFUL argument in a TfD. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Even so, I still think that this was closed prematurely. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] From the Desk of the Closing Admin - Lack of participation is a lousy argument for relisting. When a dead horse has been beaten for a long period of time, and only two people come along to beat it some more, the appropriate response is "get rid of the dead horse" not "invite more people to beat the dead horse." Maybe the issue needs or will need to be revisited, but not less than two months after the last visitation. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] endorse I'd have !voted for deletion here (this thing is useless) and a relist wouldn't have been wrong, but neither was the close. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment One of the problems was that there was no notification of the TFD. I guess because it's a highly (not to say overused) template there was no tfd message in the template. Therefore not many editors knew of the TFD. Perhaps next time a link could be added on wp:cent. That said, a relist really wouldn't have been a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Given that it's a high profile template and is therefore locked, I was unable to put TFD tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and Relist, which anyone can do anyway since it was a "no consensus" close. I agree with Hobit that the close was well in discretion and I too would have !voted for deletion. Garion is right to point out that a template with this wide-ranging of an effect on the project should have more notification than whoever happens by TFD. So while endorsing the close, I think it would be a good idea to relist the template for a fuller discussion. --B (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per closing admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a proper close. I agree with Garion and B regarding wider notification. Perhaps WP:CENT should be used to notify a deletion discussion for a widely used template. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] endorse we have already had sufficient discussions on this, including s prior Deletion review.[1] DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The discussion was given the minimum time required for any TfD (one week). Relisting a TfD do to a lack of participation is not a right or a requirement, but based on the best judgment of the evaluating administrator. Given that the template had previously been at TfD less than two months ago and there was plenty of discussion back then, it was very reasonable not to relist the debate after the initial time period. It's time to put those WP:STICKs down for a while. —Farix (t \| c) 17:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse JPG-GR is correct, this horse has been beaten enough. Just accept that there is no consensus to delete this template and relisting it for deletion 2 months after the last TFD will not change it. The TFD is May had plenty of discussion. Just because it did not yield the result you want is not a reason to relist it again and again. Regards So Why 14:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Expand – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

To quote what I said in the TFD:

Literally every time I've seen this template used, the "discussed on the talk page" segment has been entirely overlooked — it's just been used as a simple drive-by tagging, no more[…]Discussion on the template talk page turns up points such as "This template tends to hang around on articles for years and doesn't seem to have any encouraging effect on expansion" — exactly what I've witnessed on the many articles I, myself, used to drive-by tag until I began reverting my own taggings[…]Just saying "this article needs expansion" and not elaborating is not helpful, and even counter-productive in that it adds nothing but another maintenance template that nobody ever takes care of. I've been here since December 2005 and the only times I have ever seen an ((expand)) template remedied are the times that I did it myself.

I feel that the TFD was closed way prematurely and should've witnessed (at the worst) a relist since there ~~was really only one !vote that had any weight to it (the "keep" was WP:ITSUSEFUL and the only other participant didn't really !vote either way).~~ were only two !votes. In the past, there have been plenty of arguments going both ways about whether this template should be deleted or kept; as divisive as this template is, a TFD for it shouldn't simply be brushed off so fast with minimal activity. Overturn and relist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a ITSUSEFUL argument in a TfD. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I still think that this was closed prematurely. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Desk of the Closing Admin - Lack of participation is a lousy argument for relisting. When a dead horse has been beaten for a long period of time, and only two people come along to beat it some more, the appropriate response is "get rid of the dead horse" not "invite more people to beat the dead horse." Maybe the issue needs or will need to be revisited, but not less than two months after the last visitation. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I'd have !voted for deletion here (this thing is useless) and a relist wouldn't have been wrong, but neither was the close. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the problems was that there was no notification of the TFD. I guess because it's a highly (not to say overused) template there was no tfd message in the template. Therefore not many editors knew of the TFD. Perhaps next time a link could be added on wp:cent. That said, a relist really wouldn't have been a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a high profile template and is therefore locked, I was unable to put TFD tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and Relist, which anyone can do anyway since it was a "no consensus" close. I agree with Hobit that the close was well in discretion and I too would have !voted for deletion. Garion is right to point out that a template with this wide-ranging of an effect on the project should have more notification than whoever happens by TFD. So while endorsing the close, I think it would be a good idea to relist the template for a fuller discussion. --B (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per closing admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a proper close. I agree with Garion and B regarding wider notification. Perhaps WP:CENT should be used to notify a deletion discussion for a widely used template. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse we have already had sufficient discussions on this, including s prior Deletion review.[1] DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion was given the minimum time required for any TfD (one week). Relisting a TfD do to a lack of participation is not a right or a requirement, but based on the best judgment of the evaluating administrator. Given that the template had previously been at TfD less than two months ago and there was plenty of discussion back then, it was very reasonable not to relist the debate after the initial time period. It's time to put those WP:STICKs down for a while. —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse JPG-GR is correct, this horse has been beaten enough. Just accept that there is no consensus to delete this template and relisting it for deletion 2 months after the last TFD will not change it. The TFD is May had plenty of discussion. Just because it did not yield the result you want is not a reason to relist it again and again. Regards So Why 14:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.