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

The result of the discussion was keep - no consensus to delete. JPG-GR (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philadelphia Phillies 1st round (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is the only one of its kind, and a lot of the players dont have articles. Yankees10 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I may be biased as the creator, it's the navigational template to link together players in List of Philadelphia Phillies first round draft picks. In the previous discussion on deleting baseball position templates and the like, it was noted that these navboxes are valuable when there is an appropriate lead article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category relevant? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Articles with unsourced categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was recently changed from a section comment to be placed on Talk pages after a category was removed, to an in-line template on main article pages after a category was retained. This is contrary to requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS. That is, the category should always be removed. This (rarely used) template no longer serves a useful purpose.

This was previously nominated for deletion shortly after being created, and was no consensus kept after a 6D:3K discussion. Participants agreed that it would rarely be used, as the usual practice is to immediately remove "dubious", "irrelevant", "unreliable", or "unsourced" categories, with an appropriate edit history.

Currently unused. Function parallels Category unsourced below, and uses the same category. This is even more egregious, as it would be used for unsourced categories that don't even appear relevant....

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand your statement claiming "requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS." I don't think that applies to maintenance categories, which this category clearly is (also note that the category is hidden). I think this is a very valid maintenance template and category; the fact that it is not used is not relevant to the deletion discussion. I don't think WP practice is to immediately remove unsourced information (except from WP:BLPs); that is why we have maintenance templates and categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are the original creator of the template, before its perversion from Talk to Article space. I'm not surprised you think it still useful. I agree that sourcing requirements do not refer to maintenance categories, but that's not what the nomination is actually about. Any category that is not sourced should always be removed, as confirmed by several editors in the previous nomination. This has long been required by both policy and practice at en:Wikipedia.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see that there are editors who have a different opinion... And Wikipedia is all about consensus, not about doing what any one editor thinks is right. So let's await the end of these discussions to see what consensus is, and do not make any more hasty edits in the mean time. Warning posted on last users talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Warning?!?! There's no "edit warring" in this discussion. Stop your ad hominem personal attacks. They are only poisoning the well.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and use. Not at all egregious - it quite often happens that the connection between article 1 and a category X is established in sourced article 2 and the source/mention merely needs to be transferred. Eg an author might be awarded a category-worthy prize, noted in the article on the prize. Occuli (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have followed the use of this template for over half a year now. It has been used not that many times, but its use has always resulted in the discussion and sourcing or removal of categories. Which makes it a very usefull template. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) The main reason the category this template sorts into is empty is because of this template, and because I check that category on a daily basis and ask people to help solving any articles in it. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful template for its documented purpose, as discussed by other editors above. Furthermore, the use of this template is documented in an editing guideline ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow") at WP:CAT#Categorizing pages. Any proposed deletion of the template should reach a consensus on that page as to what the appropriate guideline is; deletion of the template in advance of that is premature.
  I'd like to see support for 1) the assertion that "all categories be WP:V from WP:RS" and 2) the interpretation that this means "the category should always be removed" rather than, for example, obtaining a reliable source. I don't have any problem with following this approach in the more highly scrutinized BLP articles, at least for any category that may be controversial; it's certainly consistent with WP:BLP principles that call for the removal of "poorly sourced contentious material" from such articles (as opposed to the use of the ((fact)) template, which is often more appropriate in non-BLP articles). TJRC (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Debresser added this template to that guideline. There was no prior consensus that this template should ever be used. Remember, this is for irrelevant categories that are not supported by the text, so ((fact)) would not be used either.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter who added it to the guideline. If you have an issue with the guideline, it should be addressed as part of the guideline, on its associated talk page, not as a back-door deletion of the category referenced in the guideline. TJRC (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some value in giving people an opportunity to know that a category needs sourcing before it disappears from the article — I'm often happy to help seek out sources for LGBT categories, for instance, but just because I'm gay doesn't mean I necessarily have a psychic ability to know or monitor every article that gets questioned — but I also agree that two years is far too long to leave it there if that sourcing doesn't get done promptly. I guess that perhaps what I'd like to see is a more organized effort to keep this category clean, perhaps on a "template and unsourced category should never be on an article for more than two weeks" basis. If that can be done, I'd be happy to keep this — but at the same time, I agree that it should be deleted if it's just going to become a cover for leaving disputed categories on articles permanently because nobody ever actually works on the backlog. Update: I'm also not sure what the meaningful difference is between this and ((Category unsourced)) below — while my opinion is still the same, the two templates should be merged into one if this does close as a keep. Update #2: also if kept, make it a talk page template instead. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category unsourced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Articles with unsourced categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was recently changed from a section comment to be placed on Talk pages after a category was removed, to an in-line template on main article pages after a category was retained. This is contrary to requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS. That is, the category should always be removed. This (rarely used) template no longer serves a useful purpose.

If kept, it should be restored. As its previous Talk page function, then it might be useful again to start a discussion section.

Currently used on 2 articles, clearly showing that it's not really useful in the article space, and the maintenance category itself is not well maintained:

• Wieland Speck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), since 2007-10-08 21:56:30
• Warmachine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), since 2009-03-13 12:49:41

Each should have been removed after a week!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and use. I do not agree at all that unsourced categories should be removed on sight, unless they are controversial. It quite often happens that the connection between an article and a category is established elsewhere and the source merely needs to be transferred; or a source can be established easily if requested. Occuli (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, unless better is proposed - it might be needed to show that an article belongs in a category; especially if controversial or debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud0011 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have followed the use of this template for over half a year now. It has been used not that many times, but its use has always resulted in the discussion and sourcing or removal of categories. Which makes it a very usefull template. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both articles in this category are being discussed,, but no solution has been found. That is to say that consensus is that the categories are relevant, but that proper sources have yet to be found. This means that editors unfamiliar with the proper use of this template and categories in general should inform themselves before making unasked for removals.Debresser (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really worth replying to such an arrogant display of ignorance and ad hominem personal attacks (as I'm long familiar with both templates and categories), but such egregious prevarication should not pass unchallenged:
  1. Wieland Speck has had no discussion on its Talk to date. None at all!
  2. Warmachine has had no discussion on its Talk since 2008-05-28 12:57:27. Obviously, there's been no discussion after placement of this template.
  3. Please stop lying. It potentially confuses the other participants, that don't know they have to check the veracity of your constant misrepresentations.
• The other discussants should note that Debresser was the editor that revised this template, and perverted its usage from a Talk page template to an Article template.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Cat_Search_4_New_Pages#Unsourced_.26_Awaiting_Review, foremost. To last editors personal attacks I'll reply on his talkpage, as the most proper forum for that. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nonsense. That was a direct and proper response to ad hominem personal attacks that are only poisoning the well.
2. Moreover, the user subpage cited has one reference to Wieland Speck (not Warmachine). About a month ago, Debresser added a single comment Who can source Wieland Speck? To date, there has been no response. That is not "being discussed".
3. Debresser, please stop lying. It potentially confuses the other participants, that don't know they have to check the veracity of these constant misrepresentations.
   --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, I did not change this template from talkpage to articles. The previous editor doen't know how to understand this edit. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. A correction to your own previous edits. Do you really think we cannot read edit histories?
2. Note the prior words as of 2008-05-30 23:18:01, since 2007-07-24 08:04:36 (Maintenance stuff that is meta and not about the article's prose should go on the talk page.): "Please add this template to an article's talk page, not the article itself...." [emphasis in original]
3. Debresser, please stop lying. It potentially confuses the other participants, that don't know they have to check the veracity of these constant misrepresentations.
   --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Existence of this template doesn't prevent prompt removal of cats, where appropriate. It's not better or worse, than other maintenance tags given for lack of proper sources. Expecting all problems in articles to be removed on-sight is not realistic. --Rob (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful template for its documented purpose, as discussed by other editors above. Furthermore, the use of this template is documented in an editing guideline ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow") at WP:CAT#Categorizing pages. Any proposed deletion of the template should reach a consensus on that page as to what the appropriate guideline is; deletion of the template in advance of that is premature.
  I'd like to see support for 1) the assertion that "all categories be WP:V from WP:RS" and 2) the interpretation that this means "the category should always be removed" rather than, for example, obtaining a reliable source. I don't have any problem with following this approach in the more highly scrutinized BLP articles, at least for any category that may be controversial; it's certainly consistent with WP:BLP principles that call for the removal of "poorly sourced contentious material" from such articles (as opposed to the use of the ((fact)) template, which is often more appropriate in non-BLP articles). The proposing editor's incivility exhibited in this discussion does not make his argument any more compelling. TJRC (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry that you feel that way. I'm responding in a purposeful and detailed manner to the disruptive editor that perverted the usage of this template, and continues his constant barrage of personal attacks (here and elsewhere) for several months.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per near-unanimous opinion of other editors. A clearly useful template, as I have just demonstrated for myself. Case in point: it's just spurred me to find a source for the specific example of of Wieland Speck. He's been identified with gay cinema for decades, and a little Googling turns up at least one source for his own personal gay identity, which I've posted at Talk:Wieland Speck for consideration, and which perhaps might make that particular argument moot. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some value in giving people an opportunity to know that a category needs sourcing before it disappears from the article — I'm often happy to help seek out sources for LGBT categories, for instance, but just because I'm gay doesn't mean I necessarily have a psychic ability to know or monitor every article that gets questioned — but I also agree that two years is far too long to leave it there if that sourcing doesn't get done promptly. I guess that perhaps what I'd like to see is a more organized effort to keep this category clean, perhaps on a "template and unsourced category should never be on an article for more than two weeks" basis. That said, if we do close this as a keep it should probably be merged with ((Category relevant?)), because they're really pretty much the same thing — but at the same time, I agree that it should be deleted if it's just going to become a cover for leaving disputed categories on articles permanently because nobody ever actually works on the backlog. Update: also if kept, make it a talk page template instead. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted Enigma^msg 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kristinia DeBarge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no pages linked Alankc (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Premature template.
• Delete Enigma^msg 04:21, 6 July 2009 (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.