< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

Template:IMSLPwork

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, superceded by Template:IMSLP2. —Gabbe 23:44, 13 July 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.

Template:Integrate

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely unused, and unless I'm mistaken, there's absolutely no difference between this and the far more common ((merge)). --fuzzy510 21:01, 13 July 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.

Template:List of Anime Ep TV

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. Mike Peel 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Anime Ep TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template essentially does the same job as the more versatile and widely used Template:Japanese episode list. While there is some minor formating differences, there is no reason to have near-duplicate templates. --Farix (Talk) 19:05, 13 July 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.

Template:Currentlink-related

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 boldly redirected. The template differs from ((current-related)) by only one word, so there is no need to keep it. SalaSkan 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Currentlink-related (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template does nothing anymore that ((current)) and ((current-related)) cannot do these days. I see no use for it anymore, and as a redirect its not that useful either.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 July 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.

Template:News sources warning

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 with the creator's consent (CSD G7). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:News sources warning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template seems deprecated and no longer in use . --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 July 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.

Template:Current events box BritEng

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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current events box BritEng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template seems totally unused.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 July 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.

Template:List of Anime English Ep TV

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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Anime English Ep TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Until recently, this template was only used on List of Serial Experiments Lain media. The template has been superseded by the more versatile and widely used Template:Japanese episode list. --Farix (Talk) 17:18, 13 July 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.

Template:Infobox Military Australia

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. Already replaced in the article, no need to subst. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that can be used only in the article Australian Defence Force. It is, however, currently unused. It should be substed into the article and the template deleted, or deleted without substing. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 13 July 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.

Template:Infobox Military China

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. Mike Peel 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that can be used only in the article People's Liberation Army. It is, however, currently unused. It should be substed into the article and the template deleted, or deleted without substing. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:40, 13 July 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.

Template:Infobox Military Azerbaijan

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. Mike Peel 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Azerbaijan. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:37, 13 July 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.

Template:Infobox Military Austria

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. Mike Peel 21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Austria. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:36, 13 July 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.

Template:Infobox Military Armenia

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. Mike Peel 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Armed Forces of Armenia. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:34, 13 July 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.

Template:Infobox Military Antigua and Barbuda

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. Mike Peel 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:33, 13 July 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.

Template:Infobox Military Angola

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. Mike Peel 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military Angola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Angolan Armed Forces. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:31, 13 July 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.

Template:Infobox Military Algeria

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. Mike Peel 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-use infobox template that is and can be used only in the article Military of Algeria. The sole transclusion should be substed and the template deleted. For precedent (if that matters any), see here. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:29, 13 July 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.

Template:prose

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. The changes to the template (diff) have resolved the initial concerns. Non-admin closure of a nearly unanimous consensus. Shalom Hello 01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template incorrectly lectures editors that all lists should be converted into prose. This is untrue, there is no such WP policy, and in any case there are many articles that definitely need list sections. Tag used under 100 times, and should be deleted before misinformed editors spread it. — Tempshill 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your edit introduces a second tone problem - Saying "if appropriate" seems imply that the editors using the cleanup template donn't know what they were doing :) "You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available" seems to imply that this template is often inappropriately used. A more complete rewrite seems in order, IMHO see above MrZaius<;font color="Blue">talk 00:07, 15 July 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.

Template:Camp Lazlo

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 because it's a useful navbox. Non-admin closure of a nearly unanimous consensus. Shalom Hello 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Camp Lazlo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template has little purpose and is a remnant from when there were more articles about the series before being reduced to a few as much of what was created was non-notable as a standalone article and were merged into larger articles.. treelo talk 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete This template is an easy way to navigate through six article that are all related to one television show.
Keep - Seems like a perfectly good navigational template. -- Beland 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's a fine navbox and there is no reason it needs to be deleted. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No grounds for deletion. Dfrg.msc 08:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Camp Lazlo is a definable and distinct animated series and should have its own navigation bar. - perfectblue 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Medium-Rare" Keep? - Seems useful. Doesn't look too impressive, but since when has that been an issue? Scytheml 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Domthedude001 21:33, 15 July 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.

Template:New Seven Wonders

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Seven Wonders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since its announcement, wikipedia articles relating to those 'wonders' both on the short list and the winners have been bombed with people wanting to add information about this. Apparently 100m votes were received for the new 'wonders'. The problem is, 1. The company promoting it is a commercial venture. 2. Judging by the media attention their marketing has already been enormously effective 3. This is a rather arbitrary list, it was condemned by UNESCO who argued that popular votes were no way to decide on the relative value of our world heritage and that it was statistically biased in favour countries with large populations with internet access - In Brazil the phone companies offered free calls to the vote and there were no checks on multiple voting! I don't think wikipedia's place is to be furthering this company's marketing campaign and why should this particular list be considered more important than any other? — Joopercoopers 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see if the 100 million turn up here - but it's not a vote, it's a discussion. So if you could expand or endorse my reasoning that would be good. --Joopercoopers 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that project is a controversial initiative which after several years of operation still has not gained general acceptance. There is absolutely no reason to promote it further here on Wikipedia. IMHO, templates such as this one should be limited to articles to be included in WP 1.0 (or any similar criteria.) / Mats Halldin (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - good idea. --Joopercoopers 11:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Well actually no - the article seems comply with WP:CORP - but spamming this template is a bridge too far. --Joopercoopers 11:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template name doesn't matter - almost noone will ever see it. What matters is the title of the navbox, which I've updated to read New Open World Corporation's New Seven Wonders. Don't really care too much whether this stays or goes, but if it stays, it definitely has to remain clear where the list came from/that it wasn't generated or endorsed by the Wiki. MrZaiustalk 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought: I really get irked by the inclusion of country flags on this template. I think it was the thing that most makes me want it gone. The flags suggest that some sort nationalistic jingoism is part of the inclusion in the list. The comments of the editors who have made a big point of adding New Seven Wonders changes to Taj Mahal also reflect this sort of jingoism. The real Seven Wonders provides no such sense. It's just a bizarre and unfortunate attitude, IMO, to look at the Taj or the Great Wall as accomplishments specifically Indian or Muslim or Chinese or whatever. These great monuments are insprirational primarily as human accomplishments. This template therefore reinforces a really bad attitude. There, I've said it.--Nemonoman 13:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or we should make sure to give neutral tit-for-tat: Category:World Heritage Sites - We can create a navbox for every nation's heritage sites. In every case, it would dwarf this template, and, assuming that all the "new" wonders are also UNESCO World Heritage Sites, give greater weight to UNESCO in each article. More than willing to help, if deemed necessary/positive MrZaiustalk 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would perhaps be acceptable if these were the only two shows in town, but as Seven Wonders of the World article shows there are numerous other "modern" lists of seven wonders and I don't think creating a template each for the CNN list, USA today list, Hillman list, ASCE list etc is the desirable approach. Abecedare 02:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is 100 million votes not voters! As the NWOC's FAQ themselves said in answer to "Can I call or SMS and vote as many times as I like ?", "Yes". The organization has conveniently taken down the FAQ, but it is still available at web archive. Abecedare 02:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...oops...but that seems to add more weight to my stand for deletion, doesn't it? -- Altiris Exeunt 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Difference being: Microsoft template is for products Microsoft made. American Idol template for persons made famous by American Idol. Taj Mahal, contrariwise, is what makes "New Seven Wonders" famous. A commercial enterprise has come into being by simply repeating names and pictures of monuments that other people created, that the whole world knew about and loved long before the "new seven wonders" was a glimmer its entrepreneurs' eyes. The "new seven wonders" has no more (and no less) importance than any fan website's list of Seven Wonders, except for the Vast Numbers of persons persuaded to pay to "vote" for their favorites. "votes" that the group itself says it feels comfortable ignoring.--Nemonoman 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
American Idol poured their boring little cover bands into a plastic mold? I still don't understand these largely POV-based delete arguments. Don't care a whole bunch, but the tone of this conversation seems all wrong. MrZaiustalk 18:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The delete arguments are not about deleting the N7W Wikipedia entry itself. They are about stopping this from being spammed all over the place, giving it some type of importance it doesn't deserve; if this warrants a template and inclusion on every so-called wonders' site (and a Wikipedia endorsement by artificially linking certain sites together) the gazillion of other modern wonder lists deserve that as well as they are of equal importance. DanniellaWB 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a new7wonder is considerable enough for the monument itself. Being a UNISECO World Heritage Site is more considerable and more important, I agree -- but this doesn't mean that having a template that links all the new7wonders together a bad thing. Such a template will not act as a publicity stunt, since it only spans over the articles selected. And just with Nemonoman's example, Amercian Idol made those singers famous, and I don't think it is deniable, especially with all the press the campaign has had (whether it is fair or not), that it also made many - if not all - of the sites more famous than they used to be.Eshcorp 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re your line: "made many -- if not all -- of the sites more famous line...Are you serious?. Do you really think anyone actually heard about the NSW and blinked?. "Holy cow -- a Great Pyramid!!??? Why have I never heard of this before!!??!!" A much more likely response would have been "New Seven Wonders? Why have I never heard of that before??"
I will admit surprise at the HUGE number of web pages devoted to the NSW. I just googled 680, with "duplicate results omitted." So clearly this list has captured some of the popular imagination. (Also, there's now a NSW Theme song available for download.) So, I agree that refence to the NSW should be made in these articles, as for example added to Taj Mahal.
Such a reference, however, is enough IMO. Long, long after the NSW list has been forgot, (Who remembers the Conde Nast Traveller Seven Wonders of the Modern World?) the Taj will still be there, the Great Wall will, the Great Pyramid, etc.--Nemonoman 14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I suggest we also pollute good Wikipedia articles by adding categories for every single other "wonder list" such as the ones -and I'm only mentioning some that got a significant amount of press and are mentioned on the Wikipedia page dedicated to new wonder lists- by American_Society_of_Civil_Engineers#World_Wonders, Howard Hillman and USA Today/Good Morning America. Also we should make a cat for everything ever named Eighth Wonder of the World and stick it in these pages. Basically "modern wonder lists" are nothing special, nothing new. All this one has managed to do was to create a loyal band of followers who tend to see this as a global event of importance. (while in fact it was a pretty local, relatively small, event just like many of the other wonder lists around) DanniellaWB 10:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you mean, I just don't see how this would be polluting wikipedia. First, I'm not talking about making dozens of categories only for 7 pages in them.. but a template to join information about this campaign maybe. I do have another suggestion, if having a template for the New 7 Wonders alone seems to be a bad idea for many of you, how about something like Template:Other Seven Wonder lists? That would include all the modern lists compiled in a compact way?Eshcorp 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Cambodians were crestfallen after their fabled Angkor Wat was not selected by the vote.. We are not an advertisment. Period. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Combine the lists of wonders
  2. Have no emphasis on one commercial campaign

Eshcorp 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Doens't really deal with the central issue - that this is a pretty arbitrary list. 2. Whilst it might not emphasise one commercial campaign - it still includes it - judging from the above the consensus is that the mention of this campaign on wikipedia should be confined to the article about it. 3. Why combine the list of wonders? --Joopercoopers 12:24, 17 July 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.

Template:Expand

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. After carefully reviewing the discussion, the first thing to note in this close is that there were no pressing policy concerns on either side. The !keep votes seems all focused, basically, on the idea that the template is useful. Among the !keep votes there seems to be little disagreement that this is particularly helpful for non-stub articles that need attention or expansion. The keep votes are convincing because many provide a rationale beyond "useful" or "helpful" (not that these are invalid arguments for TfD in any way) and expand on how they have been useful and helpful for the editors themselves. !Delete votes focus on issues such as "ugly template clutter" or "lack of usefulness". Since a large majority of editors purport to find this template useful, it seems we should err on the side of a diverse toolkit for many editing styles. Other template options (i.e. ((expert))) presented by !oppose voters also contribute to template clutter, but seeing as the other options are unlikely to be used in conjunction with this template, it should not add to clutter in an absolute sense. These arguments, in addition to the keep super-majority seems to make the decision to close as keep fairly clear. Editorial decisions to shrink the template or place it on talk pages are certainly possible later options. IronGargoyle 05:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template clearly is redundant with stubs. In many shorter articles marked with the Expand template, there are two or more stubs also included, amounting to three requests to help by "expanding this article". The expand template I see as defacing many fine articles or as simply an example of 'template fetishism.' — Gilliam 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No, a stub is a particularly short article. -- Beland 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. What I meant was, all articles with this tag. Smokizzy (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite the opposite. This template should never be used on stubs - only on articles that are beyond stub length but which urgently require expanding. This template exactly complements the stub system. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with just leaving a note on the talk page without tagging the note is that 1.) no one who is not alread watching the talk page will know it's there, and 2.) the message can easily get accidentally archived without anyone actually filling the request. The tag is certainly not redundant with article assessment - I've left notes on featured articles, no less, that need expansion here or there. -- Beland 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No template duplicates the purpose of this template. There are many articles for which this is the best and only template that could be used. As to indiscrimilate use, is there any way to ensure that any template is not indiscriminately used? I could give you some classic examples from stub-sorting of indiscriminate template use - this for instance, or better yet, this. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So use the template on the talk page instead. A simple comment won't categorise the article. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But stubs and articles using ((expand)) are different types of article. And it is very useful to know which articles are high-priority as regards expansion - which is the reason this template exists. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the tag used a couple of times in sections rather than entire articles, which I thought was fairly useful, but the distinction you make is simply not true, due to overuse by many Wikipedians. If this tag was used as it should be (sparingly and responsibly), it wouldn't be a problem. However, this is simply not the case. Scytheml 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't we have something on the template page or even the template itself saying how it should be used? Morgan Wick 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... that's exactly what this template does. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does that in addition to making an ugly mess on the top of articles that the general public would much rather simply read. I should have bolded the word "just". Try JUST putting a category on instead. It can be used EXACTLY the same way and doesn't muck up our mainspace. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to see this tag on article pages, move it to the talk page. That's what I do. -- Beland 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break[edit]
Shall we also delete ((uncategorised)), ((wikify)), ((cleanup-context)), and all those other "counter-productive" templates, then? This one is no different to any other cleanup resource template. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them, yes; they're an utter waste through and through. Especially ((uncategorised))... I'm still utterly confused about all these... exactly how are they any more useful than a simple category saying "the article lacks wikification/sources/categories etc."? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does help to slap this template on an article. How else can editors who wish to find articles to expand find the ones that need the most attention? True, actually adding content is the most preferred kind of help, but I think it's wrong to say that at least tagging articles that need content, so they can be found, is not helpful. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 03:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. But it's very useful to have a category showing those articles where expansion is a top priority - a function performed by this template. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sectstub is not "the other option" - it fulfils a completely different function. And yes, replacement where appropriate is fine - but it isn't always appropriate to replace it with either. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is Template:Expand-section which does not seem to be up for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.". In any case, it is useful as well for marking articles which need an expansion. Not all stub can be expanded (it depends on how many sources are available for them), and not all articles which need expansions are stub as well. --Angelo 00:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very useful template if it's only one section that needs expanding - but not at all useful if a non-stub article needs to be expanded overall. Which is why we have this separate template, and why its useful. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, with that same concern in mind, sectstub was recently greatly shrunk in size. I never could stand articles with multiple uses of the template, but now it works just fine:
Would have agreed with you a month ago, but now I believe that sectstub is a more elegant tool, and that article-wide expansion requests on non-stubs are so vague as to be meaningless. Better off just asking a question on the talk page or, better yet, throwing out an expert request. MrZaiustalk 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Btw, here's a decent example of a page that makes use of the template multiple times: American Samoa. Never going to find a GA that uses it even once, but that's a reasonably well formatted article that uses the template effectively multiple times and is no longer drowned out by huge stub notices. MrZaiustalk 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, see this section, I can't even see that template beneath the texts (which is only one bullet point list)! --202.71.240.18 05:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that sectstub is a more elegant tool. See below, starting "I dislike the idea". I would, of course, be delighted to be proved wrong :) GracenotesT § 06:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As stated above, this template should not be used on stubs as it is, A: redundant, B: avoids introducing the helpful cat. That said, I would question the template's utility on pages and sections that could not be classified as stubs. When you reach a certain point in length, it becomes nearly meaningless to add an article-wide expansion template. How on earth can a person possibly understand what's intended by the person that adds the template, barring hunting through edit summaries? The same applies to lengthy sections. I would argue that, with excessively short articles and sections, this template overlaps in a negative way with the stub templates and that with longer articles and sections, this template is even more vague and useless than a pre-sort expert template. More targeted tools exist, and should almost always be used over this, IMHO. MrZaiustalk 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for pointing out those templates! I was not aware of them. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means that it's redundant with the stub template when used article wide, or poorly focused, and, when used in a section, redundant with template:sectstub, shown above. Note that there seems to be a fair number of editors that disapprove of empty sections, barring the parents to other lengthy sections such as the History parent headers found in United States and Jainism. IMHO, it should nearly always be preferable to either hold off until there's something to write or to move to the new section, or to introduce missing links to significant topic that an editor believes should be summarized in an article in the See also section until you're ready to write a short summary. MrZaiustalk 01:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But specifically what omission? It has been my experience that this template is rarely accompanied by an explanation. Further, if an omission is so harmful that it actively misleads the reader, is a neutrality or npov tag not then appropriate? MrZaiustalk 14:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tags you mention are probably often suitable for the purpose I was thinking of, because they are also very general templates. Specifically, when half of the history of something is researched and recorded, and the other half is omitted, it's not really a npov or neutrality problem; its simply that it needs to be expanded. It may not be a stubby section either. John Vandenberg 15:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But some are in more need than others, this is where expand comes in. - perfectblue 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that such a template should be used in the less notable pages, then I think it's a good idea. Then the big expand template (the one nominated for deletion here) can be used in the more important articles. - Face 17:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you intend to determine "importance" and how does this template matter any less in pages that don't assert notability that have grown beyond being a stub? Also, per Carter's comment, I think that proposed rewording is just as vague/poorly-targetted as what we have now, its use of "non-stub" is clunky and would be hard for new/infrequent users decode, and its use of "notably incomplete" is just a little odd. Did you mean "noticeably"? MrZaiustalk 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 2[edit]
That example, assuming you're talking about Marthanda Varma Sankaran Valiathan seems a clearer case against this template than not. There was a tag redirecting to ((db-bio)) expressing concern that the subject was non-notable. While the article doesn't appear to be a good speedy deletion candidate and you were probably correct to remove the offending template, a much better replacement would have been ((notability)), as the article still lacked a sourced assertion of notability, and the stub template on the page already called for expansion. [2] Regardless of whether this template is kept or not, whenever a more specific tag is available, this template should be replaced or not used from the beginning, much like ((cleanup)) which calls for itself to be removed in favor of "a more specific message." MrZaiustalk 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, look at this thread. What an insupportable waste of time. Ling.Nut 01:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then do a speedy close as no consensus, or snowball it as a keep.
Whilst stub tags can be useful in 95% of instances, this template does still has its uses. Some Wikipedians, and perhaps some people who have not edited before, are prompted to act by it: if it is encouraging positive contributions to the encyclopedia, deletion would be detrimental to this site.
An example of where I've used it where I can't think what else I should have used: I went to an article about a creature, I forget which, hoping to find details about its evolutionary history, about which I knew nothing. The article gave in-depth information about many other aspects of the organism but did not even have an "evolution" section. With insufficient knowledge to create a section stub, what would I have done without this template? Verisimilus T 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about bringing it up on the talk page? Morgan Wick 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreso than ((incomplete list))? MrZaiustalk 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could a bot to remove it if a stub template is present be created?
It could, but it wouldn't be useful. Part of the problem is that people add this and a stub template when they're not sure which an article is. Often it's the stub template which needs removing. Part of the Stub sorting process involves removing either this template or the stub template when an article is found which has both. Once stubsense is up and running again, it may be useful for us (that is, myself and the other members of WP:WSS) to see what articles use both ((expand)) and a stub template, and launch a concerted effort on them. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Preserve the Expand template, but make it clear that it is pointless to transclude it .
  2. Move Template:Sect-stub over the Template:Expand-section, blowing away the huge bulky template that plainly should never be used multiple times in an article, as much as it distracts from the article at large.
  3. Remove reference to "section stubs" from Wikipedia:Stub and replace mention of it in Help:Section with reference to the post-move template.
  4. Simplify its use of Category: articles with sections needing expansion, possibly stripping out the arg - Don't believe it's being actively used, although I may be wrong - Was anyone actively stub-sorting sect-stub?
  5. Alter the parent expand template to be article-level only, removing reference to sections and replacing the second line with text based on the similarly generic ((cleanup)) and merge back the "with" part of expand-section, which greatly increases the template's utility:
Please help improve this article by expanding it.
See talk page or at requests for expansion and replace this template with a more specific message or request expert assistance.

It is plain that no consensus is going to be reached by continuing the endlessly repetitive discussion above, but are there any significant reasons to oppose what I've proposed above? It would deal with the complaints by myself and others that the Expand template is unfocused and unclear, that when used in individual sections it is too large (especially when repeated), redundancy with sect-stub, sect-stub's use of wiki jargon, and that deletion of the template would interfere a fair bit the efforts of other editors. This would deal with nearly all of my concerns and nearly all those expressed by editors on both sides of this debate. MrZaiustalk 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's worse, not better, as it introduces wiki jargon that doesn't really benefit the reader or editor. Any objections to the rewording above, which also allows for (({1))}/a piped argument to allow for a clear article-specific explanation of why the template was posted. MrZaiustalk 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the appearance of tags I quite frankly hate them and they look very ugly indeed but if they serve a purpose and help encourage people to improve something then why not? They are only temporary ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary is relative of course since there still is Category:Articles to be expanded since May 2005. Ok, only one or two articles in there but still. I already wouldn't mind this template so much if it were less obnoxious. More like Template:Uncategorized. Garion96 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 3[edit]
Oopsy daisy, that was me, Richard !voted keep. Atropos 05:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 4[edit]

Jest Can a TfD be nominated for deletion itself? This is a candidate! :P--Cerejota 12:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary So Far[edit]

Seeing as this is now so long, I tried to make a neutral summary of the discussion so far, though no doubt my PoV will show through.

Forgot another big one - Needlessly vague MrZaiustalk 20:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad.Irwin 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the proposal I made above is also echoed on the Template talk:Expand page and slightly updated there. This would deal with the vast majority of the issues expressed here, making the expand-section template small enough to use multiple times in an article without detracting from teh article and expanding template:expand to allow for in-template explanations and adding a note encouraging the user to do just that or replace it with an expert request. MrZaiustalk 20:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section #5[edit]
So I can only request a KEEP for a tag I neither like nor dislike? Sounds a bit strawman to me. My reason was that I think it is useful and works. Of course I like things that are useful, don't we all? Pharmboy 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the idea, to distract enough to say "Hey, I'm an article with a problem, fix me!"? Pharmboy 00:28, 24 July 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.
More