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) 22:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand prime ministers2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New Zealand prime ministers3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New Zealand prime ministers4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We have a series of navboxes for New Zealand prime ministers. Built into these templates was functionality that showed succession. I suggested quite some time ago to have the succession shown in standard succession boxes; this has now been done. The base template listing all the prime ministers needs to remain, but the others are now no longer used and should thus be deleted. Schwede66 18:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2012 (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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Florida Tarpons roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template isn't serving as a navigation aid, rather just as a roster. Contains only 1 link to another Wikipedia article. In nearly a year of watching it, that is the only transclusion. It could easily be handled with a "see also". See WP:NENAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Unfortunately, there are way too many navboxes out there that are all or mostly redlinks. Look here[1] for example. Try nominating[2] them for deletion but people defend them even though navigation with them is impossible and that's the purpose these templates are supposed to serve....William 18:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction, it now shows two links....rationale doesn't change. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2012 (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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quincy Center name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Looks as though it was intended for use in the infobox of Quincy Center (MBTA station), but that infobox uses ((MBTA infobox header)) instead.DH85868993 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose unclear (to me). DH85868993 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2012 (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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image:Cn.png (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in the userspace of User:Emissrto. Userfy? DH85868993 (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2012 (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 Template was already deleted but for some reason (most likely by mistake) the TfD was left open. Non-admin closure. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China-header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Looks as though it was designed to be used at the top of a single article, although I can't identify which one. DH85868993 (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worth speedy deleting if you want. Otherwise delete as unused. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 15 August 2012 (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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City Universities of Manila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions, doesn't look like more links will be added in the near future. Can be handled by a see also. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2012 (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 Delete; deleted as G7 by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Flag of the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia.svg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this Page thinking it would get rid of an error message elsewhere, but it didn't, so now I'm taking it back and let's get rid of it. I apologize for any inconvenience. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2012 (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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Civil-engineering designs of objects of culture in Russia in 1990-2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion, seems too specific to be a useful navigational aide. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2012 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Teddy bears (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like a very broad (and potentially subjective) scope for a navbox... Could we maybe trim this a little, or perhaps drop it entirely? NYKevin 02:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We have a teddy bears category so I don't see the problem with this. Maybe it could do with a bit of a trim though. I started this as quite a broad template, but I suppose if we were being more specific we could slim it down to just include Bear manufacturers, types of bear, a few notable ones such as Paddington Bear (though is he strictly a teddy bear?) and incidents relating to them. I've posted a possible revised version of this to Template talk:Teddy bears. Your thoughts on this are welcome as always. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's a useful tool for navigating between the related articles (and easier for novice readers than navigating the category system). I'd be happy with either the current format, or the revised format at Template talk:Teddy bears. I think a single template for this topic is preferable to multiple smaller templates. DH85868993 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose Template attempts to join books with protests with manufacturers with sporting events with music with museums. Anything that has even a tangental relationship with the general concept of a teddy bear. Also, POV. What makes one teddy "famous" but not another? Why those five books, and not others? Why those four songs, and not others? This template needs to focus on something. Resolute 13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was constructed from the information I found at the time, and has been added to on occasion since. If there are other famous bears, books, songs, etc then they can always be included. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2012 (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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nothanks-sd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to ((db-copyvio-notice)), so I think it should be redirected there. I bring it up for discussion here because there are a few dozen transclusions to user talk pages that would need to be substituted before this can be done, and I want to make sure there is a consensus to perform all the substitutions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I object to the proposed deletion & redirection. ((Nothanks-sd)) is significantly less BITEy than ((db-copyvio-notice)), IMO. It directly (instead of indirectly )speels out ways of documenting that content hasvbeen freely licensed or released. An admin or editor who has chosen this form of notice should not have it retroactively changed, and the option to use ((Nothanks-sd)) should remain available. DES ^(talk) 19:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per redundancy with ((db-copyvio-notice)). [[[User:DESiegel]], if you think that ((db-copyvio-notice)) is too BITEY, you are free to make improvements. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd have no issues with making the wording of ((db-copyvio-notice)) more friendly for new users. DES, what would you say to merging the two templates rather than just redirect one to the other? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging might be a reasonable approach. I won't object to it. But I must admit I don't see the harm in some redundancy (AKA choice) here. DES ^(talk) 14:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not about choice. What advantage do we gain through editors having a choice here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete per all. Maybe the older template can be made more friendly, but there's no sense in having two. --NYKevin 02:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I prefer the less bitey and cleaner layout of ((Nothanks-sd)). The three options if they own the content in a nice bulleted list seems a much nicer way to introduce our rules to those editor's whose first article is a copy of something they've already posted elsewhere. Just from that, I'd prefer redirecting ((db-copyvio-notice)) to this one. That said, I'm not entirely sure what the difference in circumstances is between the two placements though. ((Db-g12)) provides this template as the copy/paste notification option, but WP:CSD links to both, so maybe I'm just unfamiliar with prior discussions regarding the two. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference is that the db-x-notice templates were made for Twinkle and were made later than the other speedy deletion templates. The db-x-notice templates also use a meta-template, ((db-notice)), to keep them looking consistent with each other. The reason that I wanted to merge ((nothanks-sd)) to ((db-copyvio-notice)), rather than the other way around, was because db-copyvio-notice is based on db-notice whearas nothanks-sd is not, and I wanted to keep things standardized. As for the actual text, you may be right - I've come to think that a merge would be better than a straight redirect (whichever way we do it). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 20:28, 23 August 2012 (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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start U.S. magistrateship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used once in 1 article. Subst and delete? DH85868993 (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm the template creator, and I didn't/don't have any special knowledge about templates. I just noticed the magistrates were being handled in the same manner as district judges, even though some columns are not applicable to magistrates. There's no reason to keep the magistrate templates (there's more than one being used) unless I propagate the use to other district court articles. However, for unexplained reasons, the Central District was the only one I noticed that had a complete list of magistrates, so it would be a bigger effort than just converting from whatever to these templates. And I, obviously, have not made that effort.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral pending comment from Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges, whom I have notified. --NYKevin 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Magistrate judges, with a few exceptions, are not notable. It does not enhance the Encyclopedia to maintain the names of these non notable individuals within the articles and just makes article maintenance needlessly more difficult by having to keep track of these individuals coming and going from the courts. Thus the template in question is not needed and should be deleted. I would go further and purge the names of magistrates from the articles, but that is something for the Project to consider. (Ack, I forgot to sign this). Safiel (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin If this closes as delete, the following associated templates should be deleted as well, Template:U.S. magistrateship row Current and Template:end U.S. magistrateship Current. Safiel (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2012 (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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuban parliamentary election, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template offers nothing that cant be added to the prose of the article. Unlike other election templates which have results, this has nothing but a statement of how the system works. Lihaas (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better as prose. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tri-bio-results-top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I believe this goes unused because of the lack of awareness that this template exists, including myself. Wikipedia:WikiProject Triathlon is very small and has less than half a dozen active members (if that) including myself, but it is not listed anywhere on the project page and the creator of the template is no longer active on Wikipedia. Those that do create and edit triathlon bios often use generic wiki tables, with these very same table headings, to list results. I believe this template could be put to some good use if kept. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 13:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Barkeep is correct. Now that it is better known (I didn't know it existed either), it can be put to better use. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2012 (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 substitute and delete, as suggested. Whether or not it should be in the article is another matter. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Semitic peoples infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

OR template based on pseudoscience. Semitic is a language family, not a "people". FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it, though the term is used as a shorthand for "Semitic speaking peoples," it is not used as a racial classification. I'm seeing the term "Semitic peoples" being used in otherwise reliable sources, though, not as a race but a group of peoples who speak Semitic languages. Perhaps renaming it "Semitic-speaking peoples" might work? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are "Semitic people" as in people who speak Semitic, but having an infobox for these would be like having an infobox for "Indo-European speaking peoples" or "Sino-Tibetan speaking peoples", it simply doesn't make sense to have such an infobox, it creates a false notion of ethnicity. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashrf1979 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)What about the Slavs and Germanic Why do not you delete their own templates They are also speakers of Slavic languages ​​and call themselves the Slavic peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples[reply]

I kinda have to agree that the scale may be a bit closer to Slavic than Indo-European. Afro-Asiatic would be the scale for that Indo-European is on. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no article about "Semitic peoples", and in any case, there is no "pan-Semitic" movement or some such, like there are pan-Slavic and pan-Germanic movements. Those templates are just as ridiculous, but at least there's a basis for them in the fact that there are such movements. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashrf1979 (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Template has the names of the figures speaking Semitic languages And from different time periods and different Semitic groups It also contains ethnic groups speaking Semitic languages This no different than a list of Nations and States speaking Semitic languages[reply]

•  Administrator note The TFD notice was removed from the template shortly after FunkMonk (talk · contribs) added it. I have replaced the TFD notice and will extend this discussion for another week to allow anybody who has been watching the template to comment here. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• substitute and delete as a single use template (used only in one article). if you want to keep the image array separate, then would support moving that to say ((semitic image array)) (like ((Croats image array))). from there you can debate if there needs to be an infobox in the corresponding article. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2012 (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 consensus to merge, no consensus to delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't really understand the purpose of this tag. If someone thinks a category is not clear they remove it and leave a comment in edit summary and/or talk page. I noticed is undermaintained. I removed categories that were not discussed in the body text after being tagged for more than a year. Magioladitis (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I made this to promote discussion and consensus before the removal of a category. If you're making a non-contentious removal, then I agree, you should just go ahead and remove the category, with an explanation. If it's a BLP problem, then you should also go ahead, and immediately fix the article. But, if you know there's likely to be a good faith dispute over removal, I think something like this is good, as it gives people time to respond, and discuss matters. Edit comments and/or talk page notes will be noticed by other article editors watching the page, but I had hoped Category:Articles with unsourced categories would be monitored by other editors with a general interest in categories, who could give some neutral input into disputed uses of the category. Also, those other editors, might help by providing sources. It's much like other maintenance tags, in it tries to get outside attention to a problem, from editors not watching the particular article. But, I concede it may not have been used as much as I had hoped. --Rob (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have made edits to this templates and checked this category on a daily basis for a long period (but not recently). This template is for the following case: where a statement is made in an article, which is basis for adding a certain category, but that statement is unsourced. Just tagging the statement will not help to draw attention to the related category. Simply removing the category is justified only if you remove the statement. Hence the need for this template. Read: keep. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment so, we're supposed to add ref tags to category tags on articles? -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per comment above, categories aren't normally sourced directly, so it looks like a Template:Citation Needed on something that doesn't need to be cited. It is also made redundant by Template:Category relevant? -- both put articles in Category:Articles with unsourced categories anyway. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. Template:Category relevant? is for cases where there is no indication in the text to the category. Please read the documentation of these templates carefully. Debresser (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The distinction Debresser makes is unnecessary and arbitrary. Articles should only be categorised on verifiable statements, which implies that all categories should be backed up by both text and citations in articles. We only need one template to track that. I'd recommend deleting ((category relevant?)) (as it is the newer of the two, and has some style problems), then moving ((category unsourced)) to a more generic title such as ((cleanup-categories)) and editing it to cover both use cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is not made by me, it is the difference between these two templates, as indicated in their names and documentation pages. Now to the point: I can agree with you that ((Category relevant?)) shouldn't exist, since categories that are not indicated in the text should either be sourced or simply removed. But I oppose a rename of "Category unsourced" to something like "Cleanup-categories", since "Category unsourced" is about a specific problem (being unsourced) of a specifc category (the template takes it as a parameter, while "Cleanup-categories" is unclear as to the exact problem, and simply too general. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction does seem artbitrary to me -- if an article has enough documentation to support inclusion in a category,then the problem is probably not Template:Category relevant? so much as WP:OR or WP:RS. I think a "Cleanup-categories" template would fix the redundancy/confusion which is currently a barrier to this template being used extensively Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or merge with Template:Category relevant?, as they both do the same thing. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that they do the same thing, then you obviously didn't understand the difference. That said, I agree that a redirect of Template:Category relevant? into here would be not a bad idea. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, remind me how adding an article to Category:Articles with unsourced categories isn't the same as adding an article to Category:Articles with unsourced categories? the text may be different, but they "do the same thing". Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2012 (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.