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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

totally unnecessary template, and a real bad idea to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if anything this should be an article preload/substitution framework template... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see any useful purpose in this. We already have a template for a new and unreviewed article, which is a much better way of signalling a new article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yep. ResMar 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wouldn't placing a stub template on the page create the same effect? --Son (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see the use in this when we already have stub templates and Template:New unreviewed article. Can WP:CFORK apply to templates? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not to mention we already have Template:New page, which can be used as an inuse/underconstruction template for a brand new page. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot see what purpose this template serves. James500 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally useless template, much better alternatives per above. Jorgath (talk) 21:13, 10 February 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jackie Chan Adventures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links into four articles. Unnecessary template. JJ98 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jorgath (talk) 21:12, 10 February 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Armed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no active links other than the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; even if the album page is recreated this template has little value with so few linked articles.  Gongshow ^Talk 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; why was this template even created in the first place? - Jorgath (talk) 21:15, 10 February 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 speedy delete under G8, G6 and T3, template related to redlinked artist. (non-admin closure) Purplewowies (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Akai Shiori (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no parent article exists for the band or artist. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The template (and all the articles in it) have been created by one user (Akaimori291087) who I think may have a COI. In addition, the last bluelink in the table has been nominated for speedy deletion, and the template has as well. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:44, 3 February 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pro and con list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yet another overly specific issue. Pro and con lists seem to be an issue rare enough not to warrant their own template. Furthermore, pros and cons can be presented in a neutral set of paragraphs, so including them is not inherently bad. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete certainly. A template that flags an article as problematic for providing balanced information?! If the template said "this article is just a pro/con list" that might make sense, since articles are supposed to have a narrative character and not just be piles of raw information. But this template seems worse than useless, and discouraging of neutrality. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pro and con lists are never the best way to present information, seldom neutral and encourage POV edits (similar to a criticism sections only worse as it is a list). That they are rare is more the reason to flag the few existing cases. Not sure how it discourages neutrality from its wording, although making it more explicit that the list should be converted to prose would improve it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. In two minds on this one. I'm very much in favour of ((csection)) and this deals with a similar problem; on the other hand, it is not quite as severe, and with only 16 transclusions it's not really obvious that there's consensus this this needs its own cleanup tag. I think we can probably do without this and leave it as an editorial decision. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Well I suppose we can replace it with "((Cleanup))" with a reason... Oh wait....
• Keep Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete. As Aircorn said, pro and con lists are a bad idea, but they don't seem widespread enough or problematic enough to require flagging with their own template. - Jorgath (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Comment: ((cleanup-rewrite)) might be a good alternative. Jorgath (talk) 21:27, 10 February 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 Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lacking overview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion. Doesn't seem to be a widespread enough problem to warrant its own template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: It isn't very old, and I can think of several articles I've run into even just recently for which this would have been an appropriate cleanup tag. It probably just needs to be "advertised" a bit, like included in the list of cleanup templates. It seems very different from the one immediately below, Template:Cleanup-chartable, since how many character tables can there be requiring such serious cleanup they need to be tagged for it? By contrast, loads of stubby articles are actually collections of pretty spotty, random information with no focused narrative that gives the reader any sense of a cohesive topic. It's not just lack of a proper lead section, but an article-wide issue. (See Women's cue sports in Australia (which I tried to improve myself), Women's fishing in Australia and many other AfD-contender articles in the same category for a bunch of examples, though of a course a few like Women's association football in Australia are better developed and make sense). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an interesting one because the problem is utterly rampant (contrary to the nomination statement, articles which consist primarily of examples with little supporting text are very commonplace in my experience) , but we've already got a few templates which are more broadly deployed and which overlap with it (((tooshort)), ((prose)), ((examplefarm))). I think this should probably be given a chance after being added to the appropriate lists (and perhaps Twinkle) so people know about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am baffled by the nominating statement: this is a widespread, endemic problem in Wikipedia. I have remarked elsewhere that it is an inevitable problem for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, because it is far easier to accumulate tidbits and factoids than to research and write an effective summary or encyclopedic overview. As Chris notes, there are other templates with overlapping coverage. (Also ((Inadequate lead)), ((Cleanup-laundry)), ((Bad summary)), ((Summarize)), ((Summarize section)))

  I am not sure how effective this template will be, but I am generally supportive of trying new ideas for helping people understand encyclopedic writing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cautious keep: If this template is relatively new and unadvertised, as per above, I suggest that we keep it for now and that its advertising be improved. If there is still cause for deletion in six months, then we can revisit the issue. - Jorgath (talk) 21:30, 10 February 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-chartable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific, only one transclusion. Doesn't seem to be a widespread enough problem to warrant its own template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One use in three and a half years suggests this is a classic case of a useless template, like making a template for "Fix Johnson's birth date" in the article on Bob Johnson. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ((Cleanup)) Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• WP:POINT much? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created the template to flag ill-formatted character set tables. At the time, there were several code page tables badly in need of reformatting. I suppose there are only a handful of such tables left now (and which, it seems, are not flagged with this clean-up tag), so a case could be made that this specific tag is no longer needed. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following Loadmaster once had a use, no longer has one.--Salix (talk): 10:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Loadmaster's comment. Jorgath (talk) 21:11, 10 February 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malformed template (mostly used through its weirdly named Template:G redirect) that opens a <small> that never closes. The entire content of the template is <small style="line-height:1.15em;"> There is no corresponding close/end template as far as I can determine (no Template:!g, no Template:End allsmall, etc. – there's no documentation, so I just had to go looking around). The template is not used as a spanning template, like ((Allsmall|some content here)). It just opens markup and never closes it, letting its typographic effect run wild until the end of some other, surrounding element terminates it forcibly (we hope - there's no guarantee this will work properly across browsers and platforms). I've not seen anything like this since the earliest days of the Web. Terminating this broken thing will have no negative effect of any kind, other than making some <small> text normal size. In the few placea this will actually make any difference, it'll take whoever cares all of 10 seconds to put <small>...</small> or ((small)) around the content that was actually supposed to be constrained by this template-without-end. In any instance where someone actually cared about the "line-height:1.15em;", they can simply add that to the new markup in the instance(s) they need it. In case it's not clear: The principal deletion rationale is that it is worse than useless, and directly harmful by filling Wikipedia pages with invalid markup and unpredictable text formatting effects that depend on the sheer randomness of where they're placed, in order to ever stop. The template could conceivably be used without harm in the form ((g))Blah blah blah</small> but I have yet to find a single instance of this, and bizarre mixed markup requirements like that are not helpful to editors, making the template useless even in that case. It does have a fair number of transclusions, simply because ((g)) was quicker than ((small)), but my feeling on this is "So what?", since the negative effects of deletion will essentially be harmless and the positive ones obvious. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment whatever the case, the misleading redirect ((G)) should be deleted. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think any template that applies formatting that does not terminate by the end of the template is inherently malicious. Speedy Delete, maybe as a G6. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Works for me, though I think Vanisaac means inherently usable for malicious purposes (which is true), not inherently only usable for (i.e. intended for) malicious purposes, which in this cases seems very unlikely. It's just really bad code, and disused anyway, presumably because it's dysfunctional. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Agree that its creation was not malicious, but the only useable function it has now is malicious. Jorgath (talk) 21:33, 10 February 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.