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

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:The Singing Bee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Interlinks only three articles. Note that the header links to a dab page, and "International versions" is a subset of the US article. WP:NENAN textbook example. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete The Singing Bee serves the same purpose and better, as pointed out by the nom. Completely redundant --Jubilee♫clipman 23:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Jubileeclipman. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Best Selling Girl Groups (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I can't see a point in grouping these bands together when the only things they have in common are that they're girl groups. Also, how many do they have to have sold to be considered "best selling" for inclusion in the template? I don't really get it. anemoneprojectors talk 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep!:). I do think you should keep this, it is grouping all the Girl-groups together who have actually made it big time:).--86.150.72.146 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. These groups are big enough that they don't need a template to themselves, especially not a subjective one that's close to violating WP:NPOV. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - the template does not define "best selling", as the nom points out. If this were defined as, say, 10m+ sales then there might be a point (see the table at the top of List of best-selling girl groups). However, I remain unconvinced that record sales from the 2000's can be fairly compared with those from the 1950's or with those of the intermediate decades, since the number of buyers has increased and the marketing techniques have been sharpened in that time. Furthermore, how does one define "record sales" in this age of downloads? I'm not voting either way but I can see a whole raft of problems with this template --Jubilee♫clipman 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, the present template name is ambiguous without at least one hyphen (and it should be in sentence case): Best-selling girl groups vs best selling-girl groups vs best-selling-girl groups vs best-selling girl-groups vs [Mr] Best [is] selling girl groups etc... --Jubilee♫clipman 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete No criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 delete per author approval Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. State/Terr. ACW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made it. Not used. It can go! Kresock (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 2 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Office season 3 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 3 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 4 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 5 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 6 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Office (US) season episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to Prev and Next links as well as complete list of episodes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Not only are these templates not used in any actual articles, they are redundant to Template:TheofficeusEpisodes and List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes which are used or linked in the episode articles. Furthermore, those episode articles use ((Infobox Television episode)) which (as the nom points out) navigate to other episodes using the Prev and Next links. Redundant on too many level to count, therefore. (Also, the undabbed season 3 template should technically point to the episodes of the UK series, not those of the US series. Minor issue though, given that ((Infobox Office season 1 episode list)) etc don't actually exist) --Jubilee♫clipman 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 delete by Rjanag Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox WWIAircraft Standard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox us open cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as the U.S. Open Cup article is no longer using it, I have no problem with deleting it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. At first glance, by a simple headcount, this seemed to be headed to a definite "no consensus"; but closer examination show that most keep arguments revolve around the usefulness of the template to point out sections that need expansion, a purpose which is just as easily done with ((expand section)). Some attention needs to be paid to arguments that, while often of marginal usefulness, the template is harmless and may well stand; this argument is not without merit, but does not appear sufficient to override the general consensus that the template as applied to whole articles is, at best, entirely redundant. Also, the more general consensus in recent years is that maintenance templates on articles are undesirable when not strictly necessary; this somewhat weakens the position that they are harmless.

Procedurally, this template is all over, and it's probably unwise to blindly remove or substitute them to rush deletion; it would almost certainly be better to use a bot to remove the template entirely from articles which are already classified as stubs, replace it with ((expand section)) when it uses the section variant syntax, and either subst or find an alternative for what is left. — Coren ^(talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

All articles on Wikipedia are in constant need of improvement, most of them, expansion. This template is quite redundant. Either we add it to about ~2 million articles, or kill it. That said, I'd strongly suggest - once it is deleted - to leave the discussion page, and copy the template itself to a subpage, as it is an interesting (if misguided) part of wiki history. PS. This discussion does not concern the section expand template (((expand section))), only the top-of-the-larger-than-stub-article template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk ]]} 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Unnecessary and excessively overused template. Every article can be improved from editing. Garion96 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep. A highly used template. It denotes sections that are in clear need of expansion, which at present contain usually no more than a few lines.

In addition I disagree with the statement that "all articles on Wikipedia are in constant need of improvement": surely any article, even featured ones, can be improved, but to state unequivocally that all are in need of improvement does not give Wikipedia the credit it deserves. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is pretty obvious to tell which sections should be expanded. Still, if this template was used only for sections, then perhaps it might have some merit (might, I am not convinced). But it usage on articles is about as useful as a template saying "this article can be edited". In essence, this section is a version of the stub template, applicable to all articles, but lacking the stub usefulness in being well subcategorized. Can you tell me, with an example, when an article would benefit from having this template? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is not (or should not be) used for sections - there's ((expand section)) template used for this purpose. GregorB (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this one may be useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. See consensus to nominate for TfD here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep Per unsigned comment. Gage (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Presently there are over 65,000 articles that are tagged with this template. These articles are not necessarily in need of expansion any more than any other article on Wikipedia. However, many of these articles are in need of cleanup or improved references, in which case one of those tags should be used instead. Brad 19:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. It is important to clarify: there's ((expand)), nominated for deletion here, and there's ((expand section)). The latter is a useful template, and so is ((empty section)), for example: they are specific, and point to a reasonably well-defined weakness in the article. In contrast, ((expand)) gets slapped on a number of articles (no wonder, since perhaps as many as 90% of all Wikipedia articles could be substantially expanded), many of which are already tagged as stubs (which is redundant, because "should be expanded" is almost by definition what "stub" stands for). Too broad, given the number of articles it can be applied to, and too non-specific - hence, not really useful. GregorB (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Undecided It is certainly useful to mark inadequate sections in otherwise good articles. There are many fairly good articles which omit relevant topics entirely and may have been accepted as Start class. More resources really need to go into the assessment of articles which are within WikiProjects but it is rather an unattractive job.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  For sections there already is ((expand section)) which is not nominated for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Change or Delete. This is a widely used template (even one I've used myself) but I welcome the debate and interesting challenge. Having thought about it afresh, I'm inclined to agree that the template really adds nothing for readers - they can see whether something is extensive or brief without being told - and in fact detracts from the reading experience. The one useful part is the categories it adds (All articles for expansion etc) for editors who are looking for articles to improve, particlarly through things like SuggestBot. For that reason I'd like to suggest the box is removed leaving only the categorisations. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete ((Expand-section)) is suitable for leaving specific templates to call specific sections to mind. By definition, any article that isn't GA or FA is almost inherently need of expansion. Note that requests for expansion, to which this template used to link, was marked historical in late 2008 after a nearly two-year backlog that only got bigger and bigger. GregorB in particular makes an excellent argument that ((expand)) is far too vague, whereas {[tl|expand-section)) can specifically call out any particularly pressing expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep It's useful and harms no one. Besides, it can help provide incentive for a prospective editor to help expand an article. If I was new and didn't know what to do, this would likely make me interested in finding out how I can help improve the article further. For us established editors, it is unlikely that we know the true value that this might provide for the new editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep; it is useful for underdeveloped articles that have a high possibility of being expanded, or for articles that are underdeveloped while closely related articles are of much better quality. Tezero (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - 3/4 to 7/8 of Wikipedia's articles need improvement, so, this template is not needed. The rest of Wikipedia's articles are Good articles, A-class articles, and Featured articles. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 21:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. TheWrongBoy _{talk 2 me} 22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (I can do this, right?) Delete. That's why we have stub templates. That's also why we have editors who edit the pages and expand them instead of slapping a template on the page and walking off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbox (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete ratings tags indicate needs for expansion - i.e. Stub, Start or C, this is just a tag for the sake of having a tag.  MPJ -DK  22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep It draws attention to sections/articles that need more info urgently, potential editors with knowledge on the matter are thus more likely to add to critical deficiencies.
• Keep Right now, I am editing the article about Eric Cantor, which has been tagged for expansion. It is about one of the most powerful men in Washington, and yet it is outshined in terms of content and encyclopedic value by Socks, Bill Clinton's cat. This template provides a way for us to designate articles which are important, and yet have little to no content. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the OP. Gerry (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep There are many articles that need expansion that are not technically stubs. True, all articles can be improved, but some need it more than others. And they need it in different ways-- for example, some need updating more than expansion. This template serves to call attention to the fact that someone has actually looked at a short article, in contrast to the many that are being g ignored altogether. It isn't much, but it's a start. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - The sorted stub tags are more useful for very short articles, as they are placed with like articles. Beyond that, the class (Start, C, B, etc) gives indication that expansion is needed. I do believe that the expand-section tag is useful for pointing out a particular section that needs expansion, however. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete — There are many other templates available that are more specific as to the parts of the article worth expanding. In the case of this template, it is rather unspecific; almost all articles that are not GA or FA status will need to be "expanded". For extremely short articles, that is what the stub template is for. So if any template is to be used for expanding articles, the template placed on it ought to be much more direct to the point about what should be expanded. --Onore Baka Sama (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, particularly per nom, MPJ-DK and AndrewRT. Miracle Pen (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as redundant and unsightly. Colin4C (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep--NotedGrant Talk 05:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep This template is handy when alerting new users about their page. The fact that the template generalizes and is not topic-specific allows editors to advance the new article in an unbiased direction. Hmccasla^{The White Rabbit} 07:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)HmccaslaReply[reply]
• Delete: A stub template could be used instead of this; almost every article needs expansion, and it is somewhat ugly to place this on top of an article for such a lame purpose. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Stub tags do the job much better. And it goes without saying that ALL articles need expanding, so this tag is redundant. Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and force the taggers to be more specific about what they want expanded -- or how -- using ((Expand language)), ((intro-tooshort)), ((Expand section)) etc. - Ruodyssey (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: ((Article issues)) will also need to be tended to if this template is deleted. - Ruodyssey (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Left a note on the template's talk page. GregorB (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep . It is used on newly created articles that are in a dire need of expansion. This is quite different to articles that simply need a bit of a tickle up. I take issue with the suggestion that about 2 million articles need expansion. Granted, many articles could do with expanding but they are still perfectly adequate articles in their current state. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. There is the wider issue of what the reader should see and should be informed about. In an ideal wiki-world the reader will only see articles that are in a fit state to be seen. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep. In many places there is no real substitute for this template when an editor is seeking to draw attention and directly invite others to specific need to for more work to be done (beyond more vague categorizations as stub .. etc] Bruceanthro (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Soft keep. I have used it on occasions where a ((?-stub)) isn't available. Agree with some of comments above, however, in that it really doesn't say anything that isn't obvious, or covered by ((stub)). On the other hand, I don't know if stub text highlights the issue enough (does the casual reader - as opposed to Wikieditor - know what it means? / Should they care?). In a sense, if we are deleting ((expand)), ((stub)) might as well go too... --Haruth (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'd actually thought this was deprecated already. I can sympathise with the argument that it's useful for pages which aren't stubs and yet are obviously far too short to give a subject appropriate coverage. However, to an extent that's something to be covered by peer review rather than cleanup tags. I doubt I'd miss this, but I'm not strongly in favour of getting rid of it at this time. It would be nice to see suggestions for how else to tackle the common use cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Per Bruceanthro. I agree that all articles need improvement and many need expansion but if this template is deleted there aren't many alternatives if an editor wants to draw attention to an article and invite other editors to help without adding a template with a more narrow categorisation (eg.((Missing information)) or ((Cleanup-biography)) ). Andrewmc123 12:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I've always thought it was ridiculously redundant. The people who can expand articles will do so anyway if they see the need, and there are plenty of more appropriate ways and means open for people who can't to request it, without tagging it. MickMacNee (talk)
• Keep! Obviously! This template has been in use forever and IS IN use in many articles, and deliberately placed in some. This tag serves a useful purpose for those articles that have grown beyond a stub but still need expansion. -- œ^™ 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - It makes it clear which articles are of lower quality and need improving. You can't tell just what an article is like from reading, some subjects have more information to be written about than others, you could have a large article on war, but it still might not cover enough on some battles. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone is knowledgable anough of Wikipedia to be able use tags, how come they don't know of the many other ways such assistance could be sought, if they can't fix it themselves? There is no need for such a lazy and visually obtrusive way to request such assistance to fix a flaw that potentially effects every single article we have, bar possibly FAs. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - yes, it is obviously redundant to place it on stub articles, but it is most useful when adding it to a section which is small but does not adequately cover that aspect of the topic. See Beast (comics)#Publication history for an example of how I have often seen this template in use. If the template is not kept, then I feel there ought to be a template which is used to identify specific sections. BOZ (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• For sections there is ((expand-section)) which is not nominated for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete This template is largely redundant as entire articles in need of expansion should be tagged as stubs. Either this should be deleted or the whole range of stub template should be deleted, and since the latter is impractical, this has to go. This is a totally different case to the useful ((expand-section)) template which is good at showing which sections of an article are too short. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, clearly. It's probably one of the best tools to encourage new editors to Wikipedia. Wikidea 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expanding entire articles is hardly how most new users will start their editting career. I would be interested to see any actual proof of this assertion that these tags are the 'best tool', rather than any other reason such as not requiring registration, or vandalism reversion. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. What's it hurt? I like the idea that it encourages a critical reading of the article for possible gaps and omissions. Editors who add it, however, should always leave a comment on the talk page about what needs expanding. Drive-by tags are pointless. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The prevailing 'usefull', and now your 'does no harm', objections, are classic Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discusions, and should simply be ignored by the closer. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Agree with Gregor. ((expand section)), ((empty section)) and stub templates are available. The 'harm' in the ((expand)) is that it clutters up an article without telling you what part needs expansion. Getting rid of it would shift editors to more specific, helpful tagging. Tom B (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep It is extremely useful for a certain subset of articles just long enough to not be stubs, but that still need major expansion. And although I understand the arguement that all articles could benefit from expansion, some articles need much more expansion than others. Immunize (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep While it is true that most articles are already in need of expansion, and as such making this template repetitive, I believe this template is perfect for articles which are very short and are in need of dire expansion to be considered useful for a reader. There are stub articles; but then there are the shortest of the stub articles. Some articles are also a bit more important than others, and as such should be a higher priority for expansion. This makes the template useful for articles which are fairly long and higher in quality than a stub, but still need more content in relatedness to its importance and notability. I also like this template due to the fact that it encourages the expansion of an article, particularly from new users. Often when a new user creates a new page, it is short. Adding this template serves as a type of notification to the user that the article needs to be expanded a bit more, and it serves as an incentive for such. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If this template is to be kept for historical reasons only then keep otherwise delete per nom. Note that the template can be made untrancludeable by placing the whole content into <noinclude> tags. – allen四names 18:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, very useful. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep- While it is true that all articles could always be in expansion, some are in very much need of it (stubs etc), and it could also be used when their is more information out there and the author is asking for help in finding it and expanding it. --SKATER ^Speak. 18:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Template is misused by many users, but that just means people need a lesson, not that the template needs deleted. While it is implicit that most articles need expansion (and I can't even count how many times I've removed this template, saying just that in my edit summary), there are times when it has genuine uses; for instance, I just used ((expand|section)) here, after someone created a valid article section but with so little content it looked like a violation of WP:UNDUE; rather than deleting the otherwise valid section, I just tagged it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In that article I changed the ((expand)) template to ((expand-section)) which is a different template especially for sections. Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, I see that, and I see you described it as changing to the "correct" template. Interesting how people always think the one they like is called the "correct" one, eh? The fact of the matter is there is no guideline or consensus I'm aware of (apart from what you're trying to do here) that prescribes ((expand-section)) in particular over any other sort of expand template; it's just your personal preference. Using ((expand|section)) is parallel to the use of almost all other cleanup tags (((unreferenced|section)), ((original research|section)), need I go on?) and there's no reason to delete this version of the template just because you personally don't prefer it. Besides, there is nothing wrong with a little redundancy (notice that we have both ((unreferenced|section)) and ((unreferenced section))—both do the same thing, but having multiple ways to do that thing makes it easier for editors to get what they're looking for.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You stated in your keep comment this example, so I showed you that there is a specific template for it. For the rest I am not not trying to do anything here, so please keep that speculation to yourself. I think the expanding section template can be a good thing, I just think ((expand)) placed at the top of an article is unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And I didn't place this template at the top of any article, so there is no need for you to "correct" anything, thank you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Perhaps the guidelines for the usage of the template need to clearer and more accessible; however, I use it sparingly for articles that are in clear need of expansion but are not actually stubs. For example, an article might discuss aspects of a particular computer program but ultimately miss out several crucial pieces of data that would need to be supplied for a full understanding of the subject. That would affect the entire article rather than just sections. True, ((Missing information)) is less vague but I doubt that many would really use that template in this way: ((Missing information|the history, manufacture, marketing, application, misuse, and criticism of this software (among other things))) ((Expand)) links to the talkpage, anyway, where all of those concerns can be brought up as necessary --Jubilee♫clipman 19:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And why do you do just tag it and leave a note, instead of seeking help at the relevant Wikiproject, or a noticeboard? How likely do you think it is that someone with this exact knowledge will just be browsing the categories, and notice this article to go fixit? Infact, has anyone got any evidence that anybody is actively clearing this category? If it is only to alert editors already reading the article, it is patently not needed, as they will already have realised the article is deficient. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same reason one tags articles with ((unreferenced)), ((synthesis)), ((globalize)), ((npov)) or a host of other things without seeking advice from the relevent people or actually doing the work themselves. The reasons for using these tags rather than using other methods will vary from editor to editor. On a side note, the first of those templates I listed is also "patently not needed" but I doubt anyone will send it over here! In fact, these templates are usually placed at the top of an article and so are seen before anyone reads the article: They serve to alert rather than remind --Jubilee♫clipman 20:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a big difference between alerting to a problem, and suggesting an improvement. It's frankly just about the laziest way anybody could attempt to get such an improvement, especially if it's a problem only someone with specific knowledge of the subject could fix. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - per Tom B. A non-specific "This article needs expansion" tag provides no more useful information than a stub tag (less, actually, since it isn't categorized by topic). If the article isn't a stub, but still needs expansion, a more specific template like ((expand-section)) or ((missing information)) is far more useful. Mr.Z-man 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, but stop the abusing - The Template as useful as to not be deleted, but its used too much. Perhaps having guidelines to when an article clearly need expansion would be a good idea. --Fixman^{Praise me} 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. There are lots of articles that need this tag because they have subjects that need fleshed out. There are short articles that are neither stubs nor complete and the editor tagging them may not know (or want to think about) what specific things would warrant ((incomplete)) or ((missing)), but want to alert other editors that there could be more good information inserted. I tend to use this and ((expandsect)) fairly often compared to other maintenance templates. Someone mentioned anything that is not Featured Article or Good Article needing expansion. That may be true usually, but then those articles should have a tag pointing out what the issues are. (I, like some of the other editors above, wish some tags would be used with "sect" more often.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - This seems like an unnecessary tag – especially when used on stub articles, as it often is – but even on fuller articles, it's a blunt instrument where a more precise indicator would be better. It's fairly broadly overused, and it would be good to see it deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Just another unnecessary overused tag that clutters articles with no use to readers whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 23:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Keep It's as useful as any other tag that annoyingly appears in an article. Beneficial suggestion for editors but an annoying stain for readers.That's why I like advices for articles to be hidden in the edit section as hidden comments. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep not every article or section needs this template. It is a very useful template for when an article is in dire need of expansion (ie. a blank section) Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 00:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep – sometimes non-stubs needs expansion, depending on how much of the subject is acutally covered (that being said, manual of style specifically says that stub templates and the ((expand)) tag should both not be present on one article). I'm afraid this has turned into a "I like/don't like cleanup tags" pie fight. –MuZemike 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep by above reasoning, that this is needed for non-stub articles that are not covering substantial amounts of the title material. Cupy 52040 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Tags that aren't remedied via a project or process are useless and invariably overused and distracting. Pirate^Argh!!1! 00:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Template is quite useful in pointing out to new editors which sections of an article should be tackled first and foremost. It is indeed obvious if there are just two lines in an article's section but in lengthy articles (like the case in the of the Mortal Kombat article), at first glance you could not exactly tell that such a section would be "small" and would need considerable expansion, but considering the coverage of such a series, expansion would be quite nessecary in this case. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is used to label entire articles< for sections, ((expand section)) is used, which is not up for deletion. I just realized with the !vote below this that you can use ((expand|section)) to specify a section; however, ((expand section)) can be used instead. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak delete - I use ((expand|section)) a lot (in the manner BOZ demonstrates, it is a very useful tool for improving comics articles, where you need to direct people to add more out-of-universe material) but this is possibly from inertia and my forgetting that ((expand section)) exists. I agree that just slapping ((expand)) on an article isn't especially useful (and myself only use it for sections). So if it is deleted is there a way to get a robot to run through removing all simple ((expand)) and then converting the rest to ((expand section))? It'd save a lot of effort having to retag sections that need expanding. I am unsure if it is doable, but would it also be possible to transclude ((expand|section)) to ((expand section))? That way it'll also hoover up any future use with little stress. If those changes (the first being the important one) can be made, then I'd support getting rid of ((expand)). If it isn't possible to convert ((expand|section)) to ((expand section)) then I'd be against deleting the template as it is currently doing little harm in that form but a blanket removal of all uses of ((expand)) would be problematic as, when used for sections, it is serving a useful purpose. However, I don't think that conversion is too difficult for a robot, hence my weak delete. If there are problems with that then I may revise my thinking. (Emperor (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep Widely Used template. per above comments, needed for non-stub articles. Outback the koala (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Its a very vague template. I do believe ((expand section)) is necessary, but just telling readers/editors that an article needs expansion, without telling them why? There's a wide variety of other templates to choose from, which actually say why the article needs help- slanted toward recent events, not a worldwide view, etc. liquidluck✽talk 05:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete The proposer is correct. All Wikipedia articles need improvement, and it is pointless to mark any particular article as needing such. YLee (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and spend any time spent on pointless templates like this on expanding articles instead. Ucucha 16:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Convert to talk page template 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Per above. It's neither redundant nor should be applied to any article. The nominator's rationale is flawed: Not all articles are in need of expansion, almost all of them just would benefit from it. Any valid stub for example would clearly be a better article if expanded - but expansion is not needed for it to be useful at the moment. On the other hand, ((expand)) serves to tag those articles that are not useful to the general reader unless expanded, either because all vital information is missing or because a certain part of the subject is not covered at all. Yes, it is often used on stubs instead of ((stub)) but that does not mean the tag itself is not a good idea. The tag and the stub template(s) are not about the same problems in an article, so there is no point to try to replace one with the other. And as for not being specific enough: That's why ((expand)) contains the sentence "Further information might be found on the talk page." for when it's not clear from the article what kind of expansion is required. There will always be situations where expansion is required but not because of recent events only or single-country view or such. Regards SoWhy 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't ((Missing information)) does the job you describe better? Also, in many cases there is no discussion on the talk pages of articles with the ((expand)) template on. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. ((missing information)) requires that you know what information is missing which is not always the case. In many cases where ((expand)) is used correctly the article is in dire need of expansion but the tagger does not know how since they are unfamiliar with the subject. As for there not being a discussion on talk pages in many cases: Yes, that is a problem. But it's caused by people carelessly using the template not by the template itself. Although in many cases the need for expansion is apparent from the article without any need for explanation anyway. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete and rRedirect to ((missing information)) If the person applying the ((expand)) template doesn't know how it should be expanded then they shouldn't be applying the template. The way I see it, if someone (usually not a regular editor) comes to an article and doesn't see xyz in the article they add the ((expand)) template and then walk away and no one benefits because the next editor doesn't know *what* needs expanding. In the other situation where someone thinks it's "too short" and just slaps the expand template on that's just clutter, because, again, the following editors don't know how to fix the problem. I've personally had this done plenty of times on articles where people have placed the expand template on an article and I don't know what they are looking for, so I have to chase them down and ask what needs expansion. If we all just use the ((missing information)) temp the whole editing experience would improve. Wizard191 (talk)
• Strong keep. Yes, all articles on Wikipedia need improvement. The intention of this template, just like other templates isn't to tag every single article with it, but use as a request for expansion, in which case it can be used to keep track of such requests. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not one person has put their hand up to say, yes, I am the editor who regularly checks this category to find jobs to do. Clearly a lot of people think this happens, but without evidence, it's not convincing, and I genuinely hope any prospective closer is paying attention to aspects like this, rather than vote counting. And as far as I can see, this is the only good reason for it to exist, all the others are pretty flaky, it is dubious as to whether people reading the article need a tag before they would see it needs expansion and they can do it, and it is simply lazy if people are just slapping it on articles, when we have lots of faster and more targetted ways people can reqeust somebody expand something, if they can't/won't do it themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep, as its presence accelerates improvement of any particular article, and thus the whole encyclopaedia. Plus what everyone else of the "keep" opinion has said before above. 91.85.133.50 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Reasons given to delete are fallacious
  • "All/Most articles need expanding. " And the tag can be, if we so wish, used on only the worst offenders.
  • "We have ((Stub)) for that." A stub article is supposed to be one that is scarcely more than a place-holder. Certainly we remove "expand" from stubs as redundant.
  • "Wrong tag in many places." Fix is to put the right tag in, not delete this template.
  • "Adds nothing for readers." If so make the template invisible - there are arguments above that it is not so.
  • "Class does this job." Class is very underdeveloped. If I expand an article does the class get changed? Moreover class varies from project to project, and is on the talk page (in the bit I never look at).
  • "Use ((Missing information))." This is a dispute template, pertaining to specific information that has been, in general removed.
  • "Can use ((Expand section)) instead. " Not always. Sometimes there are no sections. Sometimes all or most sections need expanding and a single tag at the top is cleaner.

  Also re sections

  • This template can be and is used to tag sections ((Expand|section)), although the support for that was removed from the documentation some time since, and SmackBot (IIRC) replaces it as it finds it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Delete. Every article is always in need of some expansion, which means that this template tends to stay around for ever. - SimonP (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Keep this template is used to make sure users give attention to the tagged page and help the page by expanding it. -68.223.23.16 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment The point of having this general template is that there should be one easy way for people to mark this general problem, in order to encourage them to do at least do that. It is unreasonable to expect beginners to master them all at first. In fact, I doubt many experienced Wikipedians are aware of all the possibilities-- including myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  imho, anyone who knows how to use {tags} is already experienced enough to figure out one of the many better methods we have. For every supposedly inexperienced user that is slapping this tag around (and we've seen that it is also being wrongly used too, perhaps because it is such an accessible thing for inexperienced users), there are hundreds, if not thousands, of readers, who are subjected to this intrusive and distracting tag at the top of an article, without being able to do anything about it. In those terms, it is about as useful as all those {future} tags that got purged. For anyone whose skill level doesn't go beyond knowing about {tags}, as always, they can leave a note on the talkpage. No experienced editor has confessed to being the person who monitors this category for jobs to do, despite my request above, so I have to conclude it is next to pointless having it around, mere cruft that a few people consider wp:useful, but actually, isn't. That isn't enough to keep something that is highly visible on articles. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment - we are already aware of you thoughts on this matter: no need to keep repeating them, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 17:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment - Looks like it's time for a centralized discussion. 68.223.23.16 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well it's probably going to be a "No consensus" close so I guess that's the only real solution if people are really that bothered by this --Jubilee♫clipman 01:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Useless and just creates a gigantic backlog. ((Expand section)) and stub templates can cover this. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect to Template:Stub. Many templates are self-explanatory for those who don't live in Wikiland (e.g. unreferenced, uncategorized, cleanup etc). Stub means nothing, but since it's what we use generally, we should provide a standard English word in its place. Aiken ♫ 16:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 closed not a template, should be filed at WP:RFD. In addition, given that it is currently being discussed here, it is pointless to duplicate the discussion here.  Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Otheruses4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Confusing template proposed for deletion to prevent further confusion for new editors.174.3.123.220 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 delete per author request. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Species authority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What's it meant to do? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's to provide a taxonomic authority (the person who described a species). Not sure of the exact context it was intended for, though. Ucucha 03:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I understand now. However, it is unused (except for a few transclusions in user space) and probably unnecessary if the info can be better presented in a larger infobox or where ever. Hence my vote --Jubilee♫clipman 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom and my reasoning above --Jubilee♫clipman 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy delete in fact: the creator has now voted against the template (see below). Delete also all redirects and transclutions --Jubilee♫clipman 16:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete probably was intended for use in Taxobox, but the purpose might be better served by a style sheet element, if we did actually want to use a different font size, which, for accesibility resons we don't... I have notified the creator. Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Delete I think that this template is not useful. The page which redirects to it should be deleted also. --Amit6 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Cultivar species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Unedited since 2005. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Could just as well be added directly to ((Infobox Cultivar)), if truly necessary, rather that being an "add-on". (I think I understood its purpose correctly, anyway?) --Jubilee♫clipman 20:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete, if someone needs it, an admin can restore it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WP Malta Quality Scale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused assessment grid. WOSlinker (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Is there any chance it may be used in the future? -- œ^™ 06:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Premumeably this was meant to be used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Malta but they actually to use a page transclution of a different table: see WP:MALT#Assessment. Possibly redundant but the WikiProject needs to be asked really. Since this has been here for a week with no votes, perhaps we should also ask the template's creator Anonymous Dissident? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WP Malta Collaboration (topic)(to-do.v.) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem very useful & not in use. WOSlinker (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Again, that doesn't mean it won't be used sometime in the future. What if WikiProject Malta may decide to do a collaboration? Also, does the template's creator User:Anonymous Dissident (a bureaucrat no less) have any preference or desire to keep this? -- œ^™ 06:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - The content consists of the words "Wikipedia:WikiProject Malta". That's it. Easier to actually write Wikipedia:WikiProject Malta (or even just WP:MAL) rather than ((WP Malta Collaboration (topic)(to-do.v.))), IMO. Unless there is some obvious point I have missed... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WikiProject Taiwan/to do (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused project to do page in template space. Hasn't been updated for 3 years and there are no links to it either. WOSlinker (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Unused and dont see any use of it. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as abandoned in lieu of project page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Taiwan/to_do. - Ruodyssey (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Province Chile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete as redundant and inferior to ((Infobox Settlement)). It is also prone to formatting and calculation errors. In attempting to call Infobox Settlement from within the template here, I've found it's more work than it's worth -- you'd have to specify all the parameters and defaults you may want to use. If there is no objection I'm prepared to orphan it and replace with Settlement in its 53 transclusions (one exception: Easter Island). Ruodyssey (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: A province is not a settlement. Would you put ((Infobox Settlement)) into articles of the 50 states of the US? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd put ((Infobox fat Chinese kid)) on it if it had suitable parameters. Does it matter what the template's called? (Romeo and Juliet II:ii:45-46) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as ((Infobox Settlement)) is concerned, a province IS a settlement. Do see its many redirects. And no, I would not; ((Infobox U.S. state)) is doing a fine job at that (without calling Setlement). This infobox is shoddy in comparison and would be easier to replace than to revamp without breaking 53 pages at once in the process. - Ruodyssey (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment ((Infobox Settlement)) is intended to cover every geographical region "below the level of a country", including province and state. However, articles on US states use ((Infobox U.S. state)) while those on regional divisions in the UK use various infoboxes including ((Infobox England county)), ((Infobox Scotland council area)) and ((Infobox historic subdivision)). Hence IMO, the argument that ((Infobox Province Chile)) is redundant to ((Infobox Settlement)) is at least misleading in that it fails to take those other exceptions into account. There are also several templates that call ((Infobox settlement)): See Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement. I am fully aware that this is essentially an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but I think this is a genuine case where the merits and demerits of the nominated template need to be considered alongside those of closely related templates. Also, if it is kept, this template should be renamed ((Infobox Chile province)) to be in line with those other template names. BTW, should we list this debate at Template talk:Infobox settlement/Other templates up for TfD? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Normally, I would agree whole-heartedly as I have in the past with respect to dismissing other administrative division templates as redundant to Settlement. I even created ((Infobox Chilean region)) in order to call Settlement. The problem with this one is that the template is implemented as a basic table without any of the unit conversion, image sizing, or consideration for which fields may need to be optional for some articles with less information available. Do look at the code and notice every field is required yet dozens are missing. I happened upon this template a month ago, did some sandbox testing with it and wrote its documentation, noting its... eccentricities. Since, I've been toying with the notion of "upgrading" it to call Settlement like you suggest, but in doing so, I've found it leaves many parameters to be desired (or optionally unused if there are no references). Most frustrating of all, if one thinks any of these 53 pages may want to use a field, one must specify it along with any default parameters, so it would begin to take on many dozens of parameters mirroring those in Settlement. I'm also worried that as soon as the template is revamped to call Settlement and saved, inevitably, 53 infoboxes will have a number of errors. By carefully applying Settlement to each provincial page, we can avoid breaking them all at once. Thank you for sharing that link, BTW. I know of a few I could add to the list. - Ruodyssey (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm... basically, the template is irredeemably broken and could easily be replaced with a working template on all 53 pages? And it is redundant to ((Infobox Chilean region))... I'd go with that. Why not use ((Infobox Chilean region)), though (which I never noticed until you highlighted it just then) rather than the more generic ((Infobox Settlement))? --Jubilee♫clipman 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because ((Infobox Chilean region)) is tailored specifically for the 15 Regions, not the 54 Provinces; both are distinct Administrative divisions of Chile. Both could call Settlement or be replaced by it. - Ruodyssey (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete and merge to ((Infobox settlement)), or redirect, or call. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Delete - After some thought (see above), I now see why this template should be deleted. Unless anyone really feels like sorting this template out or rewriting it to call ((Infobox settlement)) (and renaming it to ((Infobox Chilean province)) per the usual standard), then I see no alternative to deletion. The box is prone to formatting and calculation errors, as the nom points out, and other templates serve its raison d'être better, notably the aforementioned ((Infobox settlement)) as well as (possibly) ((Infobox Chilean region)). The most appropriate one of these can replace the template in the 50+ articles --Jubilee♫clipman 22:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.