Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31, 2006 edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:MarkGallagher. --Rory096 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User life edit

Template:User life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divisive and inappropriate template used for soapboxing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this could go speedy, but that tag was removed by the creator. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the other two user boxes created by User:F.O.E.. This one is the least aggressive, in comparison. --Pjacobi 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, as a user box, it has the wrong name anyway. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Pjacobi 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ENOUGH with the divisive politics on Wikipedia! - Nhprman 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Worded to incite arguement. --YGagarin 16:59, 31 May 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Redirect Template:User Kerala to Template:User KERALA wiki. IceKarma ॐ 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Kerala and Template:User KERALA wiki edit

Duplicate templates, however the former is on less pages than the latter, but the former is better named than the latter. I think we should decide which one has a better format and design, make it into Template:User Kerala (because it's a better name), orphan and delete Template:User KERALA wiki. So all we have to decide is which design is better. May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, duplicate and redundant. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote to redirect, use the first name and the second design. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect one to the other, so as not to break any templates. I don't really care which, you can decide based on the names and colors which is better. --Rory096 16:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't care which color you choose, though I think User Kerala is the better name. --Rory096 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rory096. - Nick C 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. --Coredesat 05:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The second design and the first name, in my opinion. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 09:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Deepujoseph. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, keep second colours, though. Random the Scrambled 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second design, first name John Reid 21:26, 11 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. IceKarma ॐ 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iprefix edit

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 03:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Zawersh 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 17:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Random the Scrambled 13:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mgcsinc 07:41, 3 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. IceKarma ॐ 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citations missing edit

Template:Citations missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is equivalent in purpose to Template:Unreferenced. It was only created May 7 and has far fewer articles using it than Unreferenced. Unreferenced has a much longer history and seems to be more well-established in the community. Since these two templates are redundant to one another, I think one should go. -- Zawersh 04:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well they are slightly different. The "Unreferenced" template states that the article does not cite its sources, while the "Citations missing" template points out that there are parts of the article that should contain citations that don't have them. I'd be fine with combining the two somehow, though. Exploding Boy 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although similar to Template:Unreferenced, it is not entirely redundant. The primary reason I like this template is that it explicitly requests footnotes whereas the other does not. I find this to be of particular importance in medically-related articles where a book or two listed under ==References== doesn't help much. (And no one seems to like {{citation needed}} if I use it more than once or twice in an article!) Secondly, I think the format of Template:Citations missing implies: "If you're going assert something, make sure you can back it up." On the other hand, I think the format of Template:Unreferenced implies: "If you want to back up your assertion, you can if you feel like it." -AED 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)edited AED 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like the icon. --Starionwolf 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a reason to keep this... --Rory096 06:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Terence Ong 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? This isn't a vote. --Rory096 16:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete {{citation needed}}should be used to request footnotes/citations. Circeus 20:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Exploding Boy. Random the Scrambled 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, because of the footnotes mention. At the very least, I would like to see it formatted according to the other cleanup tags.--Esprit15d 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is quite obtrusive at the moment, and could be cleaned up to be more discrete, like the {{references}}.Captainj 19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename then Keep, I seem to remember there was a template called {{Needsref}}, would that be easier to type? Also keep separate from unreferenced, since they mean two different things.--Rayc 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ExplodingBoy. {{unreferenced}} covers different issues—it's also less clearly presented, as I've been using {{citations missing}} when I mean {{unreferenced}}. They're still different things, though, so they should be two distinct templates. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Template:Unreferenced. It's a much nicer box than the one we're currently using, but we should not have two boxes that say basically the same thing.--M @r ē ino 21:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm reverting my vote. I found other templates doing what I meant, and this one is redundant having Template:Unreferenced. Louie 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [P.S. I thought the tfd tag was a typo and deleted before the end of the vote: sorry!][reply]
Delete per Circeus. Mgcsinc 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paul James Cowie 10:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; redundant with {{unreferenced}} and {{fact}}. --Muchness 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this is somewhat redudant with {{unreferenced}}, it is not entirely. This shows two different things possibly in need of improvement, this saving article space. Moresoever, the box looks better than the alternitives in my opinion. LINUX ERIST@ 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete redundant template as Template:Unreferenced exists already and is far better and in consonance with wikipedia's feel. We run the risk of wikipedia becoming far too big to manage if we allow excesses, duplicates and wholly unecessary things to be constantly added - Nesher 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. If the existing templates aren't good enough, fix them. Fl owerparty☀ 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, I was going to say keep as I've used it previously, however actually reading through Template talk:Unreferenced has changed my mind, mainly as the unreferenced template has generally been decided to use at the bottom of the article where the references section would normally be. I'm swayed towards delete because this template is redundant to {{unreferenced}} (and for just sections that need references, {{unreferencedsect}}). This template also mentions Wikipedia:Footnotes which "is not mandatory" and I also wouldn't know:
1. which articles would use {{unreferenced}}, and which would use {{citations missing}},
2. whether this template should be used at the top of the article or at the bottom,
3. if this template should be used on the article page, the article's talk page, or the article creators page (the way it's worded, hence my slight confusion over usage).
- Exploding Boy's keep reasons are well founded (my original reasoning for keeping too), and when I was going through the unreferenced template, there was a version that would have covered this aspect, although it was later reverted as it wasn't discussed before the change. The unreferenced template, from what I've gathered, is meant to be unobtrusive yet get it's point across - which is why I've just changed my recent placing of this template on an article to {{unreferenced}}. Also, the unreferenced template allows for the editor placing it to explain exactly which part of the article requires citations/references (if they want to). TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 09:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is slightly less strong than Template:Unreferenced and I think should be used where it is missing some citations, whilst the other is for no references or citations. Flymeoutofhere 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The ideas represented in both templetes could easily be reworded in a common sentence. User:Samurai107
Keep. I just went looking for a tag, since unreferenced doesn't exactly suit my purpose, and this tag is perfect for what I need. Useful tag. Sandy 08:10, 12 June 2006 (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 page.