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) 00:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 NCAA Division I men's soccer regular season standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Atlantic Soccer Conference men's soccer standings expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Big East Blue men's soccer standings expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 CAA men's soccer standings expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Conference USA men's soccer standings expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Ivy League men's soccer standings expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 MAAC men's soccer standings expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 MAC men's soccer standings expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 MPSF men's soccer standings expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No related corresponding articles on which they can be placed without possibly overflowing such articles with similar templates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:03, 25 May 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) 00:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Kentucky Wildcats football team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all other seasons were not using a template for the roster, so I substituted this one, and it is currently orphaned. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 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) 00:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pittsfield Colonials roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Roster template for independent league baseball team. This team has folded and thus this template is no longer needed. Spanneraol (talk) 22:48, 23 May 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) 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category Islam Econ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

easier to just use the image directly. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 17:15, 29 May 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) 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to template:pagelist or a simple ((flatlist)) with ((c)). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apparently redundant and unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:23, 25 May 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) 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alumni category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unused, and of little use, since it doesn't save much effort. Robofish (talk) 17:11, 29 May 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) 01:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Controversial-Class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - of no obvious use. Robofish (talk) 17:10, 29 May 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) 02:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bar-2ratio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bar-3ratio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - never caught on, and not very useful. Robofish (talk) 17:12, 29 May 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) 02:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bantamweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Featherweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Heavyweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Light Heavyweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lightweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Middleweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Welterweight Fighters in UFC Undisputed 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use templates, which should just be merged with the article. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 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) 02:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Babel-left (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to ((babel|align=left)). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unused, and pretty silly (it is unlikely that any user of Wikipedia can understand no languages whatsoever). Robofish (talk) 17:13, 29 May 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) 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 PBADL Foundation Cup playoff bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template, no reason why it shouldn't be simply merged with the article. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 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) 02:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AEL Presidents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template, now orphaned. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 29 May 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) 02:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All Religions are One - table header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template, now orphaned. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and it is too simple to be useful. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:39, 24 May 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 (unused) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BEAM/RMN TV Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wrong Links/template Hamham31Heke! 07:39, 23 May 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 nominaton withdrawn. I should have probably put this up as a talk proposal first. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The same as Template:Infobox movie certificates and Template:Infobox TV ratings, but a different type of media. And while I didn't agree with those deletions, it can be argued that the consensus at those templates should be imported over here. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 02:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I understand why film and television may have removed those to favor of prose. However, in the industry, the ratings of video games tend to receive undocumented attention except as a whole (eg: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association). Rarely the factors of why a video game receives a certain rating is discussed to any depth by sources while I know many film reviews will include these factors for some titles; for VGs we'd just be stating facts without any other context to them except in limited situations (Left 4 Dead 2) Because it is mostly factual data, keeping it in the infobox and using this template to format the data makes the best sense of how to apply this data. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As is also stated by Masem, videogame ratings doesn't receive enough coverage to be explained with prose. The rating of a game is never covered with little exception (Mass Effect, Left 4 dead 2) and would be just waste of words to explain them with prose. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 13:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The nomination rationale sounds an awful lot like a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFF which is not one of the valid reasons to delete a template. Ignoring this procedural problem in the interest of saving the nom a re-filing, though, I think it would be a good idea to explain the deletion rationales for the other two templates in summary form. This would at least reduce the appearance of an OTHERSTUFF argument and might stay a summary closure without regard for the merits of the case. -Thibbs (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox TV ratings and Infobox movie certificates were both deleted as being unencyclopedic. And also what you have cited is an essay and not policy. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summary, but I can't imagine that "just unencyclopedic" was the actual rationale. I've taken a look at the substantive arguments provided in the 2009 "Template:Infobox movie certificates" discussion and they seem to boil down to the following:

• The encouragement of IINFO to combat systemic bias - This is a valid concern here.
• Violation of the Film article style and content guidelines - not relevant here.
• Prior consensus that movie certifications should be removed - not relevant here.

Regarding the 2009 deletion discussion for "Template:Infobox TV ratings", the substantive arguments boil down to the following:

• Template's instructions describe it as "inaccurate and unencyclopedic" - not relevant here.
• Inconsistency in giving a TV show a single rating while the episodes have different ratings - not relevant here.
• Lack of industry-wide rating standards - This may be a valid concern here if it is true.
• Violates the television series guidelines - not relevant here.

So looking at the previous examples you've cited, am I right in thinking that you're arguing for the deletion of the video game ratings template because 1) it has the potential to lead to IINFO in order to balance systemic bias and 2) that these ratings might lack industry-wide standards? Or is there something else that makes this particular template unencyclopedic? -Thibbs (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template is very helpful for people who want to get information about video game rating quickly. It is also convinient for comparing ratings for different regions. And explaining ratings for every video game in prose isn't needed, it's just a waste of time. So we need to keep the template. MAXXX-309 (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, the fact that there has been a consensus that it is unencyclopedic material. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I can see that the film template was removed following what appeared to be discussion from the film wikiproject, but the VG template here is not part of the film project. We see it differently. Now, on the other hand, if there was a broad (non-project specific) discussion for removal of these and that was agreed on to implement across en.wiki, that would be a different matter. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, it is an essay and not policy. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing for deletion based on if OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was policy ("We've deleted these two other templates, therefore this one should be deleted for the same reasons"). --MASEM (t) 21:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per previous rationales given. I also agree that decisions from three years ago on a totally different Wikiproject are not precedent. --Teancum (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Using a decision made within one WikiProject as a means to delete a template from a separate Wikiproject is bonkers. If so, lets use the WP:VG decision to remove flagicons from infoboxes, and apply it to WP:SPORT and WP:MILHIST. - X201 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this user, C3F2k (talk · contribs) does not clearly understands how the video game industry works and the consensus reached on Wikipedia related to the templates inside the scope of such projects. It is really irelevant what you think about the other two templates that have been deleted. On the video game scope, rating are very important as the show what the content inside the box (the game itself) might be made. Ratings points out the level of violence, gore, language, nudity and other topics important for a society and which needs to be regulated. As it is very relevant, it is obvious it needs to appear on Wikipedia. And, as it is a waste of words, and also "unencyclopedic" to write which rating and why such game received such rating, the template simplifies the way the reader obtains such information. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just my two cents: User:Thibbs brings up good points about the arguments in the other deletion arguments. Unlike TV ratings, these are standardized ratings that have been widely accepted for use, unless in special cases a game refuses to classify itself (which is rare or only for indie games). There isn't enough information about ratings to bring it into prose in the article, but they are still significant as they affect how the game can (and was sold), and if we are to have complete coverage of the topic, we should most definitely include them. A solid keep !vote from me. Nomader (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I just wrote up a length explanation of why I think the video game reviews box should be retained... I'm glad that's not under threat. Now that I realize what this template is actually for, I support keeping it. The rating of a video game is an integral part of its existence; it is an inseparable property of the game itself. The ratings appear on the covers of games and are factually descriptive. It's beyond me why any of these templates would be deleted, since a rating is just as straightforward and fixed as the number of minutes in a film. In any case, this one should be retained. CaseyPenk (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. A good faith nomination which sadly wasn't ever going to get a chance once WP:VG showed up en masse. It's also worth noting for the people invoking OTHESTUFFEXISTS that it doesn't mean what you think it means: the mere existence (or lack thereof) of a similar template is not an argument to keep (or delete) one template in particular, but it is most certainly valid to state that the reasons that a similar template was deleted also apply to this case. Otherwise we'd have to argue every single XfD from first principles in isolation to any previous consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your opinion of WP:VG and summing up of this proposal's chances are wrong Chris. I think this would have succeeded if it had been started as a proposal inside WP:VG. Instead, people have interpreted it as a bulldozer turning up at the front door. Oddly enough, I think that ratings should be removed from the VG Infobox. But the reason I have voted keep is that I think that this is not the way to achieve it. Building a consensus and allaying people's fears and objections is the way to achieve a change like this. - X201 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually making my point for me. The reason this was doomed to failure is because that is, from personal experience, precisely what happens when a template that is used widely within a given WikiProject is nominated for deletion without prior consultation with the project in question. This nomination has its merits, but there are social as well as technical factors involved in XfD. I really should write an essay explaining the most common mistakes at TfD (the other one that springs to mind is nominated a template which is theoretically redundant to another, but only after a significant amount of work which the nominator hasn't already done). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence didn't read like that Chris. It gave the impression of "This would have got through if those pesky VGers hadn't turned up". Would have been better if the original post had started with the "This nomination has its merits.." section from the second post. - X201 (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The piling on and personal attacks ("I think this user, C3F2k (talk · contribs) does not clearly understands how the video game industry works") didn't help. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have used "sadly" in my initial comment, thus implying that WP:VG members were unwelcome to comment here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a big part of the problem with this request is that it seems to display a lack of any kind of articulated rationale. Along the same lines as the "theoretical redundancy" you speak of, if one reads the nom's rationale closely it's not even clear that he is arguing the prior rationales but merely suggesting that the prior rationales can be applied here. He even states that he disagrees with the outcomes of the prior discussions, so the initiating rationale reads more like a hypothetical or theoretical exercise than a reasonable argument. I'm certain C3F2k means for the best, but he needs to be clearer about his actual reasons when making requests like this. Example can be taken from Collectonian's arguments in the previously referenced TfDs. -Thibbs (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted as well, of course, that the reason WP:OTHERSTUFF (note: different from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) was invoked in the first place was as part of a request that the nom spell out the reasons from the prior discussions that applied in this case. I made an effort at doing that myself after receiving little more than a reminder that OTHERSTUFF was only an essay and could therefore be ignored. In the end very little of the previous discussion even applies in this case. Despite all the goodfaith that can be mustered, it's still bad form to wave vaguely at a couple of un-linked-to deletion discussions from 2009 relating to an unrelated wikiproject and expect those commenting to wade through the prior arguments in order to discuss anything. As far as I understand it, OTHERSTUFF is an exhortation to be clear and precise when making specific arguments rather than to subjectively reference an entire discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly: the argument that the nominator used was "these two were deleted, ergo without any rationale beyond being a similar ratings template, this should be too." If the nom set up "I suggest this be deleted following similar discussions on the film/tv templates, such as A, B, and C..." there might be reason to discuss more - but this then screams to be an issue to start at at a talk page at WT:VG or the template or the like, instead of demanding removal by fiat at xFD. Or, alternatively, if there was a global (non-WProject discussion) that ratings templates were bad and the VG was holding on to their last vestige of one against global consensus, then TFD makes sense since no project is a walled garden. That's just not what's happening here. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just close it already. --Niemti (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a valid field that describes the subject in question, just like the release date and other information in the info box it should have a reference. It gives a more overall description of the game's content, just as the genre field does. (Floppydog66 (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep I would keep it! This is needed for the video game articles, right? 22dragon22burn (talk) 16:06, 27 May 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The text of this template reads "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories." This rationale could be applied to a very large portion of WP categories making it a meaningless template. It is essentially saying what all editors working on categories are doing anyway, namely re-categorisation. The template is used on categories that have as little as one article. Also, the imposing page-wide appearance of the template is no help to readers who arrive at a category. The appearance can be fixed of course, and I have made attempts to do so. Note that there are two previous deletion requests for this template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the assertion that we don't need something to tag categories that need diffused into sub-trees, but what we don't need is two templates for pretty much the same purpose (((category diffuse)) and ((very large))). They should probably be merged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a third that does very similar. ((parent category)) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that there is absolutely no need for a method of identifying categories that need diffusion. There is a need for it but it should be done with a hidden category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Yes, and his efforts to "fix" the template included going against consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Use_of_Category:Categories_requiring_diffusion -- which he refused to participate in -- and then vandalizing the template so it would no longer appear on category pages, eventually resulting in a 31-hour block for all his efforts. He has yet to provide any reasonable rationale why categories that need diffusion should not bear some template, over and above his entirely personal view that such helpful tools are "ugly." The category that I was most interested in was Category:Documentary films. It is not too large because for years I was diffusing films that were added to the parent category. Initially, it had been an unnavigable mess but thanks to a lot of hard work from me and a few other editors there is a category system for doc films by topic, country, etc. where the many hundreds of articles are now placed. That said, I regularly would find articles placed in the top level category that I had to diffuse, even with this template. How much worse will it be if there is no guidance for editors whatsoever? Also, I'm not doing it anymore. Far as I'm concerned, Alan can. So, there's now one less editor who is going to spend his time in this activity. So the question is, why on earth would we want to delete a small, simple template that saves time and lessens workload, by helpfully suggesting to editors that they spend a moment to place an article in an appropriate subcat, based solely on Alan's aesthetic dislike? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also point out that he continues to remove it against consensus, as recently as yesterday, so the point of this exercise at Tfd escapes me, if he's going to continue to blank it where he (and he alone) sees fit. To this end, I've initiated a ANI discussion here, as no amount of consensus from other editors that the template is needed seems to matter, to him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you saying that I should get consensus every time I want to delete a template from a page? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • When consensus is unanimously (to date) against you, when you've been repeatedly warned about unilateral actions in this area by multiple editors including admins, of course you should stop. This is news to you? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am aware of one instance were there were two other editors who disagreed with my removal of the {diffuse} template. Are you saying that I should not remove the template from other categories unless I get consensus? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There have been -- and continue to be -- multiple objections raised with your dislike of the cat diffuse template at the Categorization talk page discussion, the TfD, and your own user talk page, by me. So stop what you're doing, yes. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You seem to think other editors have nothing better to do than spar with you. I do, so goodbye. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • And likewise, I have better things to do. You and I have a different idea of what the template should be used for and that is due to the whishy-washy description of its recommended usage. It is therefore a judgement call as to where it is used. You and I make different judgements. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and a ((trout)) to the nominator for WP:FORUMSHOPPING following previous attempts to discard this template through editing were smacked down by WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the logic in that. How does WP:CONSENSUS come into it? I did a major edit to the template and it was reverted. It was not "discarding" the template. It was an attempt to improve the usability of categories for our Dear Readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to accept that rendering the template invisible to "our Dear Readers" is supposed improve the "usability" of the category? How and why, exactly? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Readers are not interested in it (and they are by far the largest group visiting WP), and it an imposing banner that detracts from the actual contents of the category. I don't know about you but I edit WP to maximise the Readers Experience. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure I understand you, when you say that diffusing articles to subcategories itself "detracts from the actual contents of the category" is it diffusion itself that you regard as a "detraction"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the question. In reply I will reiterate: "it an imposing banner that detracts from the actual contents of the category." What I should have said is the category page itself rather than the content pages and subcats. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Revert Alan's removal of the template from categories. Until that's done, restrict Alan from editing categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why suggest reverting all my removals when there may be a consensus for my edits? (I am not saying there is - it is just that it has not been discussed.) 2. This is not a forum to discuss restricting my editing behaviour. 3. You have not given an actual reason for your keep !vote. 4. WP is not a soap opera, it is not facebook, it is not somewhere to spend time and type some random words. 8. Should I toddle of to bed? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its purpose is different from ((container category)) which is used where a category should hold only sub-categories. It is also different from ((very large)), since it may be added to new categories to instil disciplined sub-categorisation – by discouraging direct categorisation – from the start. For example, I added it on Category:Computing infrastructure which should contain mainly sub-cats but directly holds a few high-level articles. – Fayenatic London (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in its present wording it is different from ((very large)), but what is the use case for each template? We don't have any rule forcing cats to be split up after they hit a certain size, so in effect ((very large)) is unnecessary. On the other hand, the reason for ((category diffuse)) is because we want categories to be easily navigable, something that only comes into play when they hit a certain size. So there's significant overlap. We don't really need them to be separate templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hidden category is the best solution, and like most templates, this one is completely useless. Alan is completely on point in claiming that usability for readers trumps maintenance and administration. Alan should be given an award for standing up for our silent readers; instead he is hauled before ANI. Typical misplaced priorities in action. We're writing and maintaining the site for our readers, not for people who obsessively add templates to categories. The priorities are so screwed up here I don't know where to begin. For those who must compulsively add templates to categories, well, you can help monitor hidden categories instead. It's invisible on the frontend to our users and still allows you to get the job done. Problem solved. Oh, wait. You guys don't actually solve problems, you cause them. Sorry, wrong site. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That supports changing the template, (which would be a content issue, not discussed here), not deleting it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe that the visible template serves a useful purpose of informing users that individual articles should not be left in the specific category. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But which articles? An that rationale could apply to a very large portion on WP categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This template is rather useful. It can not be replaced by a hidden category since users visiting the category may not see that gem if they don't have the display of hidden categories turned on. If a user adds the category to an article and then clicks on it to see if that is the correct one, something that we probably forget to do all to ofter, they get the reminder and can decide to change the category themselves rather then waiting for someone else to do it. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep it do you agree that it should be such a large size? And don't you think we should put the needs of the readers first? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Helpful guidance for editors, which also helps illustrate common practice for such categories. - jc37 13:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The helpful guidance can be done with a hidden category and common practice does not need a template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's like suggesting that common practice doesn't need policy or guideline pages. While technically true from one point of view, it's false from others. I'm a strong proponent of helpful "signposts". I have found that by not proactively having such helpful notes and such, we end up setting ourselves up as reactively biting new (and not-so-new) editors. When there is a proactive note suggesting common practice we're helping editors.

  Compare it to this: One presumes that everyone who frequents a building knows where the fire exits may be. But buildings have them anyway. Such signs simply are helpful. And IDONTWANTIT just isn't good enough for me in this case. - jc37 20:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! Think about reader vs editor, think about other options to get the massage across to editors, think about how many readers vs how many editors visit categories, realise that templates are largely ignored, realise that I have put cogent reasons forward for deletion (it is not a case of IDONTWANTIT). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale for deletion - There are other templates that can serve a similar purpose such as {container} and {very large}. To have {diffuse} would be equivalent to an {edit} template in article namespace saying "this may be short article or it may be too long so if necessary edit the article". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:SNOW and the functionality of the template--it's very useful. Furthermore, I don't know that you realize, Alan that ((Container)) and ((Diffuse)) actually serve important and distinct functions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the distinct functions of the two templates I mentioned. They are the two ends of the scale and {diffuse} is in the middle. Given that templates are generally ignored, and that there is no clear boundaries for its usage (it is used on categories that have one or one thousand pages) we should delete it and use the more useful templates such as {container} and {very large}. And just a quick note, to !vote by invoking WP:SNOW is to use the fallacious bandwagon fallacy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't understand what you mean when you write "They are the two ends of the scale and {diffuse} is in the middle"--can you clarify? The problem is not that container categories are sometimes big or small (see WP:SMALLCAT)--the "problem" is that some schemes necessarily require that an article never appear directly in it. E.g. (one of thousands) Category:Albums by decade. This only holds other categories due to its structure, whereas Category:1960s albums should be diffused into individual years categories, but that's sometimes not possible, as a release date may not be precisely known. I hope this is illustrative of both the distinction as well as the necessity of both of these categories for maintaining the navigability of the category scheme. As far as ((Large cat)) goes, that serves a different purpose as well: ((Container)) and ((Diffuse)) will essentially be in a category forever as it will persistently be an issue to keep them either entirely free of articles or mostly free and diffused to subcategories. ((Large cat)) serves the function of alerting editor to schemes which may need to be broken up due to their size, but haven't been yet. Each one is a different task and each one important. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I don't understand your appeal to the bandwagon fallacy here--my claim is not "this is true because everyone says so." My claim is "this is not going to pass because everyone is opposed to it." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or change to hidden category. At the very least, this template should be merged with ((Very large)) because they cover virtually the same issue – this can easily be achieved by changing the very large template statement to "The scope of this category is very large. It is suggested that the contents of the category be subcategorized.". My opinion is that the current cat-diffuse template is solely directed at people who are seasoned editors and not occasional readers. On that basis, I believe the cat-diffuse issue to be exclusively an administrative one, hence we should use a hidden category. It seems that many users treat the category namespace more like an administrative space, rather than the reader-based namespace that it is intended to be. SFB 17:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I accept the nominator's point that this is a widely-used template and could be applied to almost all categories with subcategories. However, that's why it's useful - because newbies often don't understand how our categorisation system works, and that articles should be put in subcategories rather than parent categories where possible. This template tells them that. Yes, there are a couple of other templates with similar messages, but each of them is slightly different; and for this one at least, I don't see what good would come from deleting it. Robofish (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template serves a purpose to remind people to be more specific when categorizing a page. It should be kept. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:05, 30 May 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.