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) 04:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Politehnica Iaşi squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is useless because the team FC Politehnica Iaşi doesn't exist since 2010. Eddie Nixon (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jared Preston (talk) 21:31, 19 March 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 and improve. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expert-subject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Expert-subject-multiple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Back in 2009, a user posted on the talk page: "Anyone adding an expert-whatever template in good faith perceives some content problem in the article but finds it beyond his expertise to fix it. But if the editor adding the expert tag knows where to look for experts, e.g. wikiprojects, he/she can just post a question/request there instead of adding the name of the wikiproect to a template. Adding the name of some wikiprojects to a template doesn't automatically trigger any alarm bells at those wikiprojects."

I'm finding untouched transclusions dating from 2007, suggesting that this template is only building up a backlog that is not decreasing in any way. I have used it several times dating back to 2008 (e.g. FoxTrot), but never seen it work — because again, the template doesn't notify the WikiProjects. This template is beyond useless, and does nothing but add template creep. If an article needs attention from a WikiProject, how about just asking the WikiProject on their talk page instead of cluttering up the article with another template? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ETA: Including ((Expert-subject-multiple)) since it's the same thing but DOUBLED! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Less than helpful template; non-specific and of little help to both readers and editors. henrik•talk 00:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sounds like a bot should be created for informing wikiprojects... 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I remember this template well, having been one of the people who helped merge and redirect the then-deprecated ((expert)) into it. The template's documentation advises explaining why the template has been added on the talk page, and removing it if no explanation is given. I've seen a lot of uses of this template but very few explanations for why (too many were just drive-by tags by AWB users), so if this template isn't deleted I'd strongly recommend going over existing uses and taking out those that have been added with no apparent reason. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful, portals are not a group of editors, and is not responded to. Not useful. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with conditions, the template does add articles to "Foo articles needing expert attention", which are usually watched/categorized by the various WikiProjects. However, it is a duplication of the "attention" parameter in the Template:WPBannerMeta. I'm wondering if these templates are deleted, then there should be a bot that would add to the article's talk page the relevant Project banner and the parameter "attention=yes". Otherwise, you're going to lose a whole bunch of articles that were tagged for help. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless conditions like what Funandtrvl are implemented. Just because it isn't used appropriately doesn't mean it can't have a function. Why not just have it notify wikiprojects? Aslbsl (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This should be orphaned, rather than just merely deleted, per the comments above. However, I agree that it's current set up needs to be changed. Most of these big unchecked categories are just that, unchecked. They typically only get used is if used by a not or someone uses them to make a list for AWB, or some other tools. - jc37 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. One could use AWB to add the WikiProject banner to the talk pages. This template shouldn't be deleted unless that is part of the conditions--to wait until the bot or AWB work is done. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the nominator mainly objects to it failing to notify wikiprojects, it seems the issue is more with that aspect of the template, rather than the nature of the template itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But fixing the template does nothing to fix years of prior drive-by transclusions which did not notify the wikiprojects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not? Those transclusions could be replaced by talk page project banners, correcting the error and making use of this little "database" of existing transclusions, most of which were likely done in good faith and, I can only presume, in most instances with good reasons. Or am I missing something here? --195.14.221.106 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix: per Devil's Advocate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:57, 28 February 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, Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted from original listing on February 24 after a Deletion review. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is important to be able to mark articles where subject-matter expertise is required to resolve a content problem or simply to make a technical article more accessible to general readers. It often takes more skill to fix a problem than to spot one, and while this template can be used any time one would like an expert to look at an article, it is most especially useful for flagging articles where an attempt by a non-expert to fix a problem may do more harm than good. And not all experts are (regular) members of their respective WikiProjects; for example, there may be doctors who read or edit Wikipedia but are not members of WikiProject Medicine, or lawyers who edit Wikipedia but are not members of WikiProject Law. (By the way, I might note, in passing, that neither the documentation of the WikiProject Medicine banner nor the documentation of the WikiProject Law banner even mention any "attention=yes" parameter!) Furthermore, the WikiProject "attention=yes" parameter, which is suggested as the preferable alternative to the use of ((expert-subject)), simply means that an article needs "immediate" attention; it does not necessarily mean that it needs attention from an expert in the subject. Bwrs (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve such that a reason parameter is being added to describe either inline or on the talk page what needs expert attention. I consider this template to be one of the more useful ones, especially when contacting a WikiProject isn't being fruitful (e.g., like for this article). Nageh (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template is useful at the very least for WikiProject mathematics, which does not use a project banner (see the DRV discussion). In addition Bwrs makes arguments that are very compelling. Most experts in the world are obviously not likely to belong to any WikiProject, yet they should be encouraged to edit articles in need of their attention. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's the most logical way to point experts toward articles they could make a big difference in. Rschwieb (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Make a "reason" field compulsory and then keep. There are two ways an article can be tagged to call attention of a subject expert, either in a banner on the talk page or in the article itself. On the talk page editors will see the banner but average readers will not, on the article readers will be able to see the tag. Template/bot wizardary make it easy to inform relevant wikiprojects using either method. So the question here is do we need to inform the average reader? I would say yes, with a condition: that some rationale is given so that readers can see where the problem might be. If say one of the equations in an article looks wrong, then that is a good case for adding an expert tag, so that readers and editors are aware their might be a problem. However just saying "this needs attention from an expert" does not help the general reader, it does not even indicate that the equation might be wrong. Saying "this needs attention from an expert because the equation might be wrong" informs the reader to treat the equation with some caution. I've made a draft maths specific template ((expert-maths)) which has a compulsory reason field as an experiment.--Salix (talk): 16:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Might also be added by even an expert, which thinks he has already spent enough time on Wikipedia. Tagremover (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above and strongly encourage editors to use the |reason= parameter. —Ruud 23:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: though the nominator's concern is pretty valid, it would be better addressed from the WikiProjects' end. Probably AAlertBot should be tuned to include the relevant section in its reports. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Many experts patrol Wikipedia articles related to their area of expertise, and when they see these tags, many of them feel it is their duty to contribute to the article. This tag should be here to ask the general public to pitch in, not just editors at WikiProjects. A wider scope (everyone who sees the article vs. everyone in a WikiProject) will get the attention the article needs FASTER. BlowingTopHat (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix The nomination seems to recognise that we need this, and the only reason for deletion would seem to be that it doesn't work. Surely we can fix this rather than abandoning the effort altogether? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's suggestion of posting on a wikiproject is inadequate, because postings are haphazard and not easy to find. By using a standard format template to mark pages in need of expert attention, we can more easily gather then (e.g. in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists) and make it possible for experts looking for such pages to find them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Template identifies a specific class of problem articles in a way that makes it easy for editors best qualified to address the issues to find them. I do agree that closer integration with wikiprojects would be a good thing, though. -- LWG ^talk 19:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came here via the template on Chronic liver disease, a page with serious problems. In such cases, a template like this is clearly needed. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose as inexperienced editors probably don't know about wikiprojects. I'd say leave the template for inexperienced editors and have the veterans notify the wikiprojects and then delete the template. So the template could say "Please notify the appropriate Wikiproject. Once you have done so, remove this message." D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Not every subject falls easily into an active wikiproject, and this is much easier for people who don't need to hunt down a wikiproject which is by and large something that inexperienced users will have more trouble with than simply adding a template. The fact that we have a backlog isn't a reason to get rid of the template; there's a relevant cliche about ostriches and sand there. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, on account that it's a good way to recategorize articles as needing review by those who are that familiar with them. The problem the nom cited isn't so easily fixed in the WP:SOFIXIT way, but I'm really seeing some good use in this template here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: in addition to the more technical arguments above, consider the benefit this template has in informing a reader of the article that it may contain even major inaccuracies. A note on a wikiproject somewhere is by contrast going to be invisible, and inclusion in a "articles needing attention" category is also going to go by without notice. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that. It sends a clear message to readers, imo, without any unnecessarily bureaucratic language. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein: the template is at the very least useful for categorization purposes, allowing anyone qualified and interested in fixing articles to have quick overview of what needs fixing. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template serves three purposes: 1. it alerts users to potential problems, 2. It attracts established editors (even those not in Wikiprojects), and 3. It specifically invites expert users who may never have edited before to make changes. Suggesting requests for expert attention be diverted to WikiProjects only partially addresses the second use. I think it is a valuable template. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll drink to that. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix it. Create something like Wikipedia:Article alerts just for tracking Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikiprojects do not cover every subject and do not always have established experts in every field; the expert tag is useful to convey its questionable accuracy without removing content that seems proper. Having them listed with a category would allow focus on the tags; the unsorted mass could just become a backlog or the focus of a short term, identification session to sort the tags. All the tag needs is more attention; its purpose is still unique and useful to Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot of casual users have seen templates but probably don't know much about wikiprojects. Keep the template and have the appropriate wikiprojects patrol it (and, where necessary, use improved, more specific templates in its place). Apart from the wikiprojects objection, there is no good reason to get rid of an expert-subject template (unless Wikipedia wants to pretend that editors with subject expertise don't matter). --Middle 8 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Fix, problems acknowledged, however, while I have rarely had occasion to use this template, on those occasions that I did, I found no other options. Not every topic has a Wikiproject. ENeville (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but is there some way to make it redlink to a talk page section name or something, to make sure that the person who puts it on an article makes a note of what their specific concerns are? 71.212.241.67 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and perhaps require rationale - we can't limit article creation just to experts, so we'll no doubt have articles that need expert attention.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 27 March 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 G7. — ξ^xplicit 05:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not useful at this time; the only links go to the band's main article and the record label's page. This can be recreated if/when the band's EPs/singles/album become notable.  Gongshow ^Talk 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At the time, I was intending to create Wikipedia pages for a few of the bands singles and possibly create the page for the band's debut album, We'll Be the Moon - but this will likely be done in the near future; so the template itself is obsolete for the time being. AlligatorSky (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per above request of the creator. (No. Not The Creator above). Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:16, 19 March 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) 00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CENTCOM AOR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template that should have been a map. All the navigation targets are countries. That's not useful. meco (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this should be a table in the article. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - notified template creator BlowingTopHat (talk) 05:53, 22 March 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) 04:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gussing that it's somehow related to List of Source engine mods. Template doesn't seem relevant for Wikipedia. WOSlinker (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The pre-cooked nature of this makes me somewhat wary that it's been copied from another wiki, and as such it's lacking attribution as well as being inappropriate content-wise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 19 March 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.