< April 4	April 6 >

April 5

Template:Kifu

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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be made for a specific purpose, Deep Blue (chess computer), which I just replaced with ((wikisourcehas)). It is one year younger than wikisourcehas.. Thinboy00's ~~sockpuppet~~ alternate account 17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is a self-declared test template that belongs in userspace or sandbox. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Three reasons, each of which are enough in and of themselves:

1) The template was (admittedly) created as a test,

2) It is not used by any articles, and

3) It is redundant to a pre-existing template.--Aervanath (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G2 of the CSD. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 21:02, 10 April 2008 (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:Wikiapar

The result of the debate was no consensus. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less functional subsets of ((wikia)). Unused in articlespace. — Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rebuild wikiapar into something like ((wiktionarypar)) for multitargets; and wikiapar2 as something like ((dablink)) so you can roll your own wikia link message. Only the starting boilerplate would remain. 70.51.9.57 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikiapar2 as redundant to ((wikia)) – imho, a hatnote disambig wouldn't be useful. A newer version of wikiapar, as suggested by 70.51, would be as follows:
- [[Wikia]] has ((#if:(({4|))}|articles|an article)) about (({subject|this subject))} at [[wikiasite:(({1))}|(({2))}]]: [[wikiasite:(({1))}:(({3))}|(({3))}]]((#if:(({4|))}|, [[wikiasite:(({1))}:(({4))}|(({4))}]]))((#if:(({5|))}|, [[wikiasite:(({1))}:(({5))}|(({5))}]]))
I think such a template would be useful, although it need not exist at ((wikiapar)) specifically. Gracenotes^T § 03:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually I meant like dablink, in that it is a formatted template that you can add your own message with, not that it should be used as a hatnote. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate to promote Wikia through Wikimedia Foundation projects. Eleven Special (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this has nothing to do with the nomination, and Wikia link templates appear to have the support of the community anyway (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 9). Gracenotes^T § 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War operations templates

The result of the debate was keep, see also the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_2#Template:Operations of the Iraq war - Nabla (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of little encyclopedic value. Most of the operations redirect to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. If the attempt was to list them, then it is redundant to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War — TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:2003_Operations, you will find that there are plenty of these operations that have their own articles. Yes, there are also quite a few which currently link to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, because they don't have their own articles yet. The key word there is "yet". As the individual articles for these operations are clearly still in the process of being created, I think it is very premature to delete the template altogether.--Aervanath (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: all six nominations (identical nom/comment, except for template name) have been merged into one. If you wish to comment on individual templates instead of the batch (keep some, delete others), feel free to do so. See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 2#Template:Operations of the Iraq war. Gracenotes^T § 03:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise. I think that if we delete the all operations template then we should at least keep the templates for the yearly ones. I do think that we could unlink the ones that direct back to the operations list page.--Kumioko (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete instead Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 2#Template:Operations of the Iraq war bahamut0013 ♠♣ 22:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expunge all the redirects. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jackie Chan filmography

The result of the debate was delete without prejudice against recreation as a director-only template. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous discussions on actor templates. Actors should not have a template for their filmographies. However, I'd be happy if this was reduced/reworked to include ONLY the films Chan directed. — Lugnuts (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep as is~~ {Vote changed below} I disagree with the conclusions of that discussion. I see nothing wrong with this template in particular, nor actor templates in general.--Aervanath (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the lengthy and reasoned arguments have already been made and that consensus for deletion has been established, this is a moot point. Delete is the only alternative. Bzuk (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This is not a moot point. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus can change.--Aervanath (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Elaboration I should elaborate why I don't agree with the previous consensus. As I understand it, the previous consensus was reached to delete all actor templates because they were redundant to the filmographies already in place on the actors' pages. I fail to see why this is a bad thing. --Aervanath (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the general consensus has been against actors having their own templates. There are multiple actors in any given film, so imagine the template overkill for an ensemble film of famous actors at the end of a film article -- every film in which each actor ever appeared. In addition, the template is hardly appropriate to mention or be included in films in which an actor may have had a minor appearance. It's too subjective to argue what constitutes minor or major. Thus, the approach of having these links available on the biographical article or a filmography sub-article is appropriate. It's only one or two clicks away. Director templates are more appropriate because there will almost always be one director involved with a film, and they are consistently important in getting the film done (as opposed to a cameo by a major actor). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Erik, templates that try to encompass material in a way that this does are derivative and redundant in nature. In the case of this one in particular, it contains nothing that isn't already included on the filmography page as well as the subject page. Also, as Erik pointed out, there is a POV inherent in this one in particular since it further classifies the films into arbitrary categories such as "major", "child" and "cameo". I'm not at all clear on how some of those determinations were made, and thus makes it appear more POV. Given the multiple roles this actor fills on films, it's quite difficult to tell using this template when those multiple roles occur. Redundancy of material is inappropriate when it has no direct purpose. Finally, as in earlier discussion, it's not per consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relunctantly Neutral While I still think actor templates do serve a purpose, can be included on movie pages without causing template overkill, and can be fixed to avoid POV through a simple measure to determine what should or shouldn't be included, I think that the fact that this consensus was so recently established makes it useless for me to try to change it now. I will bide my time and see if the consensus is amenable to change at some point in the future.--Aervanath (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that consensus does shift over time, but a very valid reason needs to accompany the change. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete / trim to films he directed -- It's not that one actor template is the problem. It's deciding who deserves such templates and then having 10 actor templates on a film. It's just unworkable (imagine Ocean's Eleven). gren グレン 11:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His flmography does not serves a template. There can be on for his direction. Madhava 1947 (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sukhoi Russian airliners

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not in use in any articles. Additionally, the format doesn't make for good navigation, and one has to question why there is a template at all, seeing that it only has a single aircraft on it.. Россавиа ^Диалог 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused template, tfd'ed by author soon after creation, (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 28#Various nav templates), but no clear consensus reached at that time. As the template is not currently in use, and shows no signs of being used, there's really no need to keep this around.--Aervanath (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ilyushin Russian airliners

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not in use in any articles. Additionally, the format doesn't make for good navigation, and one has to question why any other design bureau is mentioned. And lastly, the Il-14 and Il-18 were built exclusively during the Soviet era, so to call them "Russian airliners" is a misnomer. Россавиа ^Диалог 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tupolev Russian airliners

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not in use in any articles. Additionally, the format doesn't make for good navigation, i.e. click on Ilyushin and it takes you to the Ilyushin template - why Ilyushin is there anyway is anyones guess.. Россавиа ^Диалог 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template is used by 12 articles, better explanation for deletion needs to be defined. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - um, no it isn't. It may link to 12 articles, but it isn't transcluded anywhere at the moment, which suggests it isn't considered useful, and can be safely deleted. Terraxos (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citations missing

The result of the debate was no consensus (kept by default). There are many opinions on how to merge or restructure the whole citations templates. I guess that's a good thing but this is not the place for it - Nabla (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC) PS: Anyone opening such discussion, plaese feal free to add a link here.[reply]

This template has been around for a while, but I don't understand what it's supposed to be used for. If it's meant for tagging articles with no sources whatsoever, it's redundant to Template:Unreferenced. If it's meant for tagging articles with not enough sources, it's redundant to Template:Refimprove. And if it's meant for tagging articles with a list of references, but no inline citations, it's redundant to Template:Nofootnotes. In any case, it's an unnecessary template, and should probably be deleted and replaced with one of those more specific templates as appropriate. — Terraxos (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that the primary difference between Citations missing and unreferenced is that unreferenced is used (per wording) only on articles with no footnotes whatsoever, and Citations missing is used for articles that just need more footnotes. If this template and refimprove are redundant to each other - then refimprove should probably be the one to be deleted, as it is the younger template, however then again, I think (or last I checked ... which was a while ago) refimprove is more popular - so I guess that could be an argument to delete Citations missing. Regardless of all that though - I think that there's precedent for keeping this per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_31#Template:Citations_missing, thus my vote (although in fairness - that deletion discussion was done prior to the creation of Refimprove). I believe that all these templates are popular enough that we should keep all 3 - unless someone creates a bot to fix all the redirects that will occur if we redirect one template to another - in which case my vote would be to delete refimprove since it should not have originally been created, as Citations missing was already established).--danielfolsom 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ((Refimprove)) is popular partly because a bunch of templates were merged there, and SmackBot canonicalises template names when it dates them. It would be trivial to merge the two, although I prefer the canonical name to be one spelled out in full with spaces. Regardless it's unlikely that actually deleting ((Citations missing)) would be a good move. Closing admin:Please let me know the outcome of this debate. Rich Farmbrough, 06:31 5 April 2008 (GMT).

Keep: Variety of templates useful to deal with variety of reference deficiencies. This template is in widespread use, and there is no reason to break something that is working. Finell (Talk) 07:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per original lister -- it's redundant and should be trimmed. Dan100 (Talk) 11:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, used where references appear to be provided as a bibliography, but no inline citations are provided. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Template:nofootnotes. gren グレン 11:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete avoid redundancy. and merge articles that have this template with the Template:Unreferenced Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The immediately preceding comment is factually inaccurate. ((Unreferenced)), according to its documentation, can be used only where an article (or section, if the section is named in an optional parameter) cites NO references. ((Citations missing)), on the other hand, is for articles that have some references, but where additional references would improve the article, and points out the desirability of inline citations, which may be Harvard refs or footnotes. Templates ((nofootnotes)) and ((morefootnotes)), unlike this one, apply where there are adequate sources in a bibliography, but recommends improving the the article by adding footnote references specifically (not inline Harvard refs) to the already-cited sources; the emphasis is on form. In many instances, the specific text of ((Citations missing)) is more descriptive than the alternatives, and is therefore not redundant; I use it frequently in those instances. Finell (Talk) 03:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the correct template for an article with some but not enough references is ((refimprove)). As it currently stands, ((citations missing)) is too vague to determine whether it is a request for more references or more footnotes, and different people use it in different situations. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 20:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template:Citations missing is NOT redundant with Template:Refimprove. Refimprove is used when there are not enough reliable sources referenced in the article, whether through inline cites or at the end. Citations missing is used when there are references included in the article, but that they need to be integrated into the text as inline citations.--Aervanath (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I would support rewording one or both of Template:Citations missing and Template:Refimprove to make this distinction more clear. For example, Citiations missing could read "...missing INLINE citations..." and refimprove could be altered to say that additional references were needed, as opposed to citations. Thoughts?--Aervanath (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal, but make it clear that it only applies to FEW inline citations, as opposed to none. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 17:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to at least one of ((refimprove)), ((nofootnotes)), ((morefootnotes)). --Thinboy00's ~~sockpuppet~~ alternate account 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate & Gradual Phase-out: When ((refimprove)) is not warranted, ((nofootnotes)) and ((morefootnotes)) provide more specific guidance on what is required to improve the article than ((citations missing)), making it redundant. However, this template has been placed on thousands of articles, and they will need to be individually re-evaluated to determine which of ((refimprove)), ((nofootnotes)), or ((morefootnotes)), or any of them, are warranted. (Thanks for pointing those templates out, Thinboy)--Aervanath (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too vague to be any rreal use. Circeus (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to fit a current need I have to mark a specific quotation which doesn't indicate a reference or citation for its source. If there's a better template for this purpose, please tell me. Pigman☿ 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigman, the template for specific statements is ((fact)). ((citations missing)) is for a whole article or section.--Aervanath (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. If you want to combine/merge various citation templates, we can discuss that but not here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears to be the only template that recommends the inclusion of inline citations if there are none or more are needed. I will not argue against reviewing the existing templates to see if they can be combined or reduced. ((nofootnotes)), or ((morefootnotes)) are specific to cases of no notes or too few. The problem there is that once an inline citation is added, ((nofootnotes)) is no longer valid and needs to be deleted or changed to ((morefootnotes)). But that is a different discussion as others have pointed out. I will raise one point not addressed about the adding of this template. It is also a redirect from ((inline)) and maybe that redirect needs to be reviewed and changed to another template that emphasizes the need for inline citations in any situation. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template is too similar to the template made to indicate that an article or section needs more references. Martarius (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator. A redundant template. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of people use this, and the redundancy doesn't really outweigh the general crapitude that would be throughout Wikipedia if it were to be removed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate and phase out - I agree with the nominators reasoning, but Celarnor makes a good point that outright deleting this template would case undue disruption. Skomorokh 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above.TheRingess (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its purpose (to encourage editors to add citations when there are some but not enough, and using ((fact)) for would just litter the article at the expense of its readability) is and always has been clear enough to me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate as redundant, per nomination. Unreferenced, RefImprove, and NoFootnotes cover the full spectrum. <eleland/talkedits> 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate. I have been confused by this template in the past myself. Mangostar (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments above. --ざくら木 12:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it's too vague. Better to place ((fact)) where a cite is needed. Coemgenus 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per original post and subsequent comments. It does seem superfluous given ((fact)) and the other similar templates. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievably strong keep. Citations are an absolute necessity in respectable research where the article is relying on multiple sources and not original research. Since Wikipedia is a secondary source, individual statements must be properly sourced. For larger articles and/or articles with multiple sources, and especially in complex or controversial topics, article must have inline citations to reference specific statements to the exact sources from which they come. It is unbelievably time-consuming to have to read each course to determine which statements it supports: a clear reminder for the NEED of inline citations must remain as an essential function of Wikipedia! If this template is deleted, I intend to add it on my own, lest Wikipedia look LESS reliable and scholarly. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see ((nofootnotes)). « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 20:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ((refimprove)). No point in having two templates this similar. Verisimilus T 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ((refimprove)). Even if subtle differences existed in the original intents for these templates, the reality is that their phrasing and usage are now virtually indistinguishable. Milnivlek (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observation and question: The clear consensus is that there is no consensus; further "votes" are very likely to be likewise. So, if there is no consensus to delete or for another disposition, is the outcome keep? Finell (Talk) 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for now. Use of footnotes is absolutely crucial to verifiability, by making it clear which sources relate to which facts in the article. This is not the same as ((refimprove)), which is widely used to indicate a need for more sources; this template specifically addresses the need for inline citations. The debate above has been disappointing, because so many contributors have confused a general shortage of references with the precise issue of inline citations. There is some degree of overlap between the various templates, but no-one has demonstrated any harm done by this overlap, and in the confusion here there is a danger of damage being done. Per davidwr, this is not the place for a general review of various citation templates; and if changes are to be made, it should be as part of a general review which examines the different forms of referencing problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't ((Morefootnotes)) specifically address the need for more inline citations? -Malkinann (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward. In my experience, it is both a useful template and a weapon. Useful, because we have some articles that are sweeping in their statements and tie them down to one very general (and usually very long) reference for the entire article. But I often come across (usually anon) editors who want every dot and comma referenced, sticking a ((fact)) at the end of each sentence and then reaching for this template when they are challenged. And they are usually ((fact))ing such statements as "...on Earth the sky appears blue((fact))..." and similar abuses. The result of this template being used is therefore citations to the same source appearing at the end of every single statement in the article (because, on Wikipedia, we don't have such a thing as a happy medium). Nevertheless, the template is more often correctly used than abused, but only 51:49. So I'll go for keep with an "and" in preference to delete with a "but". But it's awkward, very awkward. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate I would like to point out that most of the "keep"s for this template have been objections saying that it necessary to fulfill some function, such as marking an article that needs more citations or lacks inline citations. However, reiterating what the nominator said: we already have templates for these purposes. Specifically:
- ((unreferenced)) is for articles with no references.
- ((refimprove)) is for articles with too few reliable references.
- ((nofootnotes)) is for articles with references but not inline citations.

In other words, this deletion discussion is not a discussion of whether we need reference-related templates, but whether we need this specific template which is redundant to several others. The above three much more specific templates pretty much cover anything this template possibly could. However, ((citations missing)) is still used in way too many different situations to merge or redirect it. So, deprecate it for now.

Lastly, I'd like to mention that ((morefootnotes)) is redundant given how ((nofootnotes)) is currently worded. But that is another discussion. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply ((nofootnotes)) specifically states that there is an 'External links' section in the article while ((citations needed))/((citations missing)) doesn't, and I have never even seen a ((nofootnotes)) template used before. Furthermore, ((refimprove)) has a much more negative connotation than ((citations needed)). Also, ((citations missing)) is used when there are still some references in the article, so it's not like ((unreferenced)). WinterSpw (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate we have better templates as presented by others above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge somewhere... it doesn't hurt to have another redirect. gren グレン 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only for gems like this: This Thrash Metal Entry is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. - Francis Tyers · 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the thrash metal entry argument of April 2008, put forward by Francis Tyers QC. --Wytukaze (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate' the use is too miscellaneous. See for example the use on Mitteleuropa, where it appears to simply emphasise a "fact" tag. Various things will need doing here--in this case, simply removing the template. In most case, ideally adding references. Incidentally, I think Harvard references are just as much "inline references" as footnotes are--they appear next to specific points in the article needing references; the distinction is inline vs just a bibliography. DGG (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, there is a crucial difference between "unreferenced" and a request for inline citations. As "nofootnotes" is clumsily phrased, this is by far the best alternative. MURGH ^disc. 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you think ((nofootnotes)) is badly worded, why not add a request on the talk page to change it? « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 20:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate It's a duplicate template. It's ambiguous as to whether the article needs 1)existing cites converted to inline; 2)citations added, period; 3)citations improved upon. We have more specific templates for all three of these. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Terraxos makes the point very well, in my opinion, on how and why the template is redundant to others. —Scouter Sig 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate per JeremyMcCracken. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really a useless template... ((fact)) tags work better so we know what claims are actually challenged. If there aren't any challenged claims... there are billions of more protective things you can be doing than requesting more inline citations just to decorate an article. --Rividian (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and save the human effort required to fix its deletion with more research and fixing of in-line references. It's about content, folks, not about presentation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Inline citations are presentation, not content. --Rividian (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Deprecate^{[which in XfD parlance typically implies Redirect to elsewhere, eg ((refimprove))]}. This templete is obviously superfluous/ambiguous/confusing as nom, JeremyMcCracken and others make clear. Ironically, its redundancy is also demonstrated by those arguing for 'keep' while being confused about the purpose of the template. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep the template works. It alerts others that the article needs citations specifically, in addition to ((fact)) it will give a motivated editor the excuse to change the article.. unfortunately there are LAZY EDITORS THAT DO NOT USE CITATIONS!!!!--Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 01:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may something to do with the fact that external links within the article need to be fully referenced, but ((cleanup-link rot)) can be used for that. If we need to mention use more inlines in addition to more gens, make a copy of ((refimprove)). At the minimum change the icon to something like Image:Question book-3.svg --209.244.31.53 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments, especially Danielfolsom. Joelster (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Since this discussion seems to be dragging on forever with everyone arguing the same points... here's a suggestion:
1. Deprecate ((citations missing)) and start replacing it with one of the more specific templates (((unreferenced)), ((refimprove)), or ((morefootnotes))) wherever it is used.
2. Delete the current contents of ((morefootnotes)) and move the sufficiently generally-worded ((nofootnotes)) to ((morefootnotes)).
3. Improve the wording of the templates to make it clear where they should be used. Perhaps:
  - ((refimprove)): This article or section needs additional references for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
  - ((nofootnotes)) (would become ((morefootnotes))): This article or section includes references or external links, but its sources remain unorganized because it lacks in-text citations. You can help improve this article by introducing more precise in-text citations.

Thoughts? « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not deprecate ((nofootnotes)) and make a few minor wording changes to ((Citations missing))? I think there is a solution that could be reached by minor tweaking of the wording for these two templates. Perhaps even renaming to ((refinline)). In any case, it is clear there is no consensus to remove this one at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ((Unreferenced)) or ((Refimprove)) is better suited, and thus this is redundant. If an article is missing citations, it doesn't have them, or needs more. As such, this template isn't needed. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite useful; warns others of the quality of the following article. 71.38.213.16 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. As others have pointed out, any conceivable interpretation of this template seems to be already covered by other templates. This particular one has the disadvantage of being poorly worded: "This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes". I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to tag an article as needing any type of footnote other than a citation footnote. Does it actually just mean that the article needs citations? Or does it mean that it needs citations, and, by the way, they ought to be inline citations that generate footnotes? Whatever it's supposed to mean it doesn't say it clearly. Matt 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC).
Delete I concur with the general argument and I think we should use Aaron Rotenberg suggestions above. Its obvious to me that the wording needs to be clarified and his suggestions seem like the best way to me.--Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate/merge in favour of more clearly/specifically worded templates.--Srleffler (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was created after ((unreferenced)) but before both ((nofootnotes)) and ((refimprove)). It's purpose is clear — to tag articles and sections that are missing citations. If someone puts some links in a References section but they aren't cited anywhere, ((unreferenced)) doesn't apply. I suppose you could say ((nofootnotes)) applies, but that was created after ((citations missing)). And if ((nofootnotes)) is used in a section, it says "This section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations." which is poorly worded. If anything, ((nofootnotes)) should redirect to this template. Citations missing is a much better name in my opinion than nofootnotes. --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Extremely popular, and ((unreferenced)) is for use when an article may contain a single reference, for example, but lack sufficiant citations through the article Rotovia (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep ((nofootnotes)) specifically states that there is an 'External links' section in the article while ((citations needed))/((citations missing)) doesn't, and I have never even seen a ((nofootnotes)) template used before. Furthermore, ((refimprove)) has a much more negative connotation than ((citations needed)). Also, ((citations missing)) is used when there are still some references in the article, so it's not like ((unreferenced)). No debate should be required with nominating this tag for deletion; definitely keep. By the way, would someone mind telling me if the tags on all articles having this tag be deleted if this template is removed?

Question to those who favor deletion: Given the large number of editors who want to keep, are the large number of editors who favor delete really prepared to say that we are all just stupid? That is, should those of us who use it (only sometimes, of course, and judiciously, we hope) be deprived of editorial discretion to use it when we belive it is the most appropriate message in particular situations? Finell (Talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some people don't appreciate the problem with the wording of this template. In Wikipedia, as far as I am aware, there are two types of footnote. The first type is a clarification or expansion of the main text. The second is a citation: a reference to the source from which the information in the main text derives. The message "This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes." is confusing. It probably means that the article or section is missing citations, and that the citations, when they are added, should be in-line citations that generate footnotes. However, it doesn't actually say this. What it actually says is that the article is either missing citations (in any style) or is missing footnotes (of either type), or possibly both. I very much doubt that's what it is intended to mean. Matt 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for pointing that out, Matt. Now that you bring it up, I agree with you that "or needs footnotes" creates an ambiguity, since the template is about citations only, and not explanatory footnotes. However, that is a reason for editing the template to clarify it. It is not a reason to delete or depricate it. If anything is to be deleted, it should be ((nofootnotes)) and ((morefootnotes)), becasue Harvard references fill the need for inline citations as well as footnotes do (althouth many of us prefer footnotes because they do not clutter the text the way that a lot of Harvard refs can). Finell (Talk) 08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 questions:

1) Are we so short on space that we have to debate whether or not to delete something that so many find useful?
2) I have seen this template used when a sentence or two in an article seems to violate some policy, and the violation could be cured with a citation. Is there another template that meets this need? Phil Burnstein (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ((fact)). That template would even let us know which sentences "violate some policy", rather than making us guess. --Rividian (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((fact)) is useful where isolated statements or quotations in an otherwise well sourced article or section require direct citations. However, where an article or section generally lacks sufficient inline citations, putting ((fact)) tags everywhere makes too much of a mess. Finell (Talk) 08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still more useful than a vague tag. Even if I see an article with 15 ((fact)) tags, I can fix that (see what I did with Charlton Heston). With a vague tag like this.. I generally just remove the tag and ask what is actually challenged. A lot of the problem is that people want a lot of citations even if they don't challenge any claims in the article... which is a total waste of other editor's time. --Rividian (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to be depreciated and replaced with a more specific template. It's useless as it is because of it's vagueness. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Refimprove Unless this meassage is made more specific it is really pointless considering all the similar templates we have for the same purpose. If it is kept, the category assigned here needs to be altered. This is partially my fault as the I suggested changing the cat from a similarly inappropriate category in the past. I was looking at this today and realized it is now filling up the category used by ((fact)), which means we cannot easily find the sort the ((fact)) tags by age to remove those assertions to the talk page when they become significantly old (or remove the tag itself if inappropriate).--BirgitteSB 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ((Refimprove)). Why do we possibly need a redundant template? I'm aware that editors are used to typing this template instead of some other template, so it's potentially useful. This seems closest to Refimprove; let's just make it so that we have a simpler set of citation templates without getting rid of a common link. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or deprecate This template is distracting (POV) and ugly (POV). But also useless: Someone able to put citations will know if an article doesn't have them, not need to advertise it in such an off-topic way (in the sense that it starts the article with information not on the subject of the article). The template is also self referential, which should be avoided. (see User:Shanes/Why tags are evil). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting it on the talk page would solve a large part of those problems. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citations missing arbitrary break #1[edit]

Analysis & Proposal Since it seems like there is no consensus, I thought I'd try to break the problem down to a level where it's clear what we're all talking about. It seems like most of the comments on both sides are about when and how to use this template and its relatives, ((unreferenced)), ((refimprove)), ((nofootnotes)) and ((morefootnotes)). There have also been quite a number of comments about various of them needing to be worded more clearly. So, here are the different situations that I can see an article/section having. I would say that each situation should have its own template (except the last one):
- (1)No references or inline citations at all
- (2)Some (but not enough) references, but no inline citations
- (3)Some (but not enough) refs and some (but not enough) inline citations
- (4)Sufficient references, but no inline citations
- (5)Sufficient references, and some (but not enough) inline citations
- (6)Sufficient references and sufficient inline citations.

Now, obviously #6 doesn't require a template, but the others do. Now, there are currently five templates that address these issues. (I am not counting ((fact)), since it is only for individual sentences, not articles or sections.) Five templates, five situations that need templates; we've got the right number of templates, but not the wording on each one to fit each situation precisely. Here is my feeling on how the templates currently match up with the situations above, based on their wording (the templates in bold are only used for that situation):

(1) ((unreferenced)) and ((citations missing))

(2) ((refimprove)) and ((citations missing))

(3) ((refimprove)) and ((citations missing))

(4) ((nofootnotes)), ((refimprove)) and ((citations missing))

(5) ((morefootnotes)), ((refimprove)) and ((citations missing))

So we can see that situations (1),(4) and (5) already have specific templates, and that (2) and (3) don't. So, I propose that:

(A) Specific templates should be created for situations (2) and (3), and

(B) ((refimprove)) and ((citations missing)) should be merged/redirected in some way, since it seems clear (to me, at least) that we really don't need them both, or at all.

(I would also recommend that ((morefootnotes)) be worded more concisely, but I don't think it's meaning needs to change.)

If you feel there are any situations that I have left out above, or that my understanding of the wording of the templates is faulty, please let me know so I can alter my analysis.--Aervanath (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis, but not your opinion of what should be done about it. It seems to me like situations (2) and (3) and situations (4) and (5) are too similar to warrant separate templates, since while it is much worse if an article cites no sources than if it cites some sources, the same is not so much true for inline citations. Furthermore, ((nofootnotes)) is currently worded so that it could be used on an article with no footnotes or with some but not enough footnotes. So here is how I would do it:
(1) ((unreferenced)) (we assume that whoever adds references will add inline citations as well)

(2) ((refimprove)) and ((nofootnotes)), both at once

(3) ((refimprove)) and ((nofootnotes)), both at once

(4) ((nofootnotes))

(5) ((nofootnotes))

Finally, getting back to ((citations needed)) in particular, I note that it is so general that you suggest it could be applied in every situation. Such a broad template seems rather useless to me: "There is something wrong with the references in this article! Please fix it!" Hence the arguments for deprecation instead of merging. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 07:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If we're going to go with your solution, I think that all/some of those templates would need to be reworded to make it more clear what the problem is with the article. For example: ((nofootnotes)), which is currently worded so as to specifically tag an article or section without any footnotes at all, would need to be changed to something indicating that there aren't enough footnotes, hence its applicability to situations #2-#5 as per your suggestion above. But I do agree that my analysis does indicate that ((citations needed)) is too general.--Aervanath (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where does ((nofootnotes)) say that it is for articles with no footnotes at all? Look at the wording again: "This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations." Nothing in those two sentences implies that the article contains absolutely no footnotes. Granted, the name of the template is ((nofootnotes)), but that is why I previously suggested it should be moved over ((morefootnotes)). (As others have suggested, we should still probably change the wording of the template by removing the "list of references" clause.) « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ((nofootnotes)) says: "...lacks in-text citations". "Lack" generally means that there aren't any.--Aervanath's signature is boring 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - in cases 1-3, given that there are no references, the ((nofootnotes)) tag is both unnecessary and confuses the priorities. Not having references for an article is a serious problem, and relevant to all articles. That they not be inline with the facts they support isusually less important--and may not even always be relevant to a short general article. DGG (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citations missing arbitrary break #2[edit]

Delete per original redundancy argument. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple solution: Depricate This template is redundant to several existing templates, depending on context: If the article or section has no references then editors should use ((unreferenced)) or ((unreferencedsection)). If it has insufficient references, ((refimprove)), ((onesource)), or one of the other cleanup templates may be in order. If the article or section is supported by references but lacks in-line citations, editors should flag it with ((nofootnotes)). Unfortunately we can't easily delete this widely-used template since short of globally subst:'ing the existing template there's no automated way to replace it without making mistakes. Therefore, deprecating it is in order. Personally, I'd like to see a wholesale reorg of all of these templates but that's a lot more work and best handled by a merger discussion rather than in TfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storng Keep I would say delete on this one but this template specifies the missing footnotes (Sources) section which plagues many articles. I don't really find it redundant to the others. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close?[edit]

Forgive me, please, but I cannot resist repeating the remark I made one week ago:

Observation and question: The clear consensus is that there is no consensus; further "votes" are very likely to be likewise. So, if there is no consensus to delete or for another disposition, is the outcome keep? Finell (Talk) 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it time that this RfD were closed with no action for lack of consensus? Finell (Talk) 07:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion and move to different venue This discussion has moved beyond the simple deletion of ((citations missing)) and into the realm of reorganizing all of the templates that have been mentioned (and mentioned, and mentioned...) above. I agree with Finell that this discussion is not going to result in a consensus for deletion of this template. However, there are enough people arguing for changes in the current system (although not necessarily the same changes), that this discussion needs to be continued in a more appropriate forum...but I don't know where that should be.--Aervanath's signature is boring 16:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close and relocate discussion per Aervanath. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]