Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 2

< January 1	January 3 >

January 2 edit

Template:Rfd2m 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 section.

The result of the discussion was merge as a classical consensus consisting of discussion with nobody eventually objecting. How refreshing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd2m (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rfd2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Rfd2m with Template:Rfd2.
Since these two templates are substituted, they could be merged with no errors in functionality, provided that all applicable documentation gets updated on WP:RFD, etc. The main differences between {{Rfd2}} and {{Rfd2m}} is that {{Rfd2}} creates a section header, whereas {{Rfd2m}} creates an anchor. The differences can be activated/deactivated on one template by using a qualifier (such as multi=yes) after the two are merged. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like a good idea, provided that the documentation at WP:RFD is changed a while before anything modifying the current functionality is implemented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm happy with it. I note that at WT:RFD Steel1943 says " from what I see, Twinkle only utilizes {{Rfd2}} and not {{Rfd2m}}, so that gadget should be unaffected", so that's good. But I think the documentation at {{Rfd2m}} is clearer than that at {{Rfd2}}. I'm not too concerned with section header vs anchor. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK to me. If it's trivial to add alternate parameters do the same thing, header=no would be logical as well as the multi=yes proposal. Note that I've just redirect Template talk:Rfd2m to Template talk:Rfd2 as proposed on the latter talk page nearly a year ago. I did so before spotting this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I was just thinking about this again earlier today. If this implementation is approved, I'm thinking that {{Rfd2}} could also be updated to allow all uses of the template to use an anchor; the way I see it, there's no reason not to since searching for a section goes to the first instance that it appears on a page, and if the section header is created, the first instance would always be the section header. (And, it could possibly make it easier for editors to merge similar RFD entries without breaking existing section/anchor redirects to the nominations.) Also, I'm thinking that the header parameter may be better suited for adding a custom header, and if the value were blank, it would default to the name of the nominated redirect. (Of course, the header would still be completely suppressed if the proposed multi=yes parameter exists as mentioned above.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are actually proposing to do there. As long as each discussion has exactly one section header, I'm not too bothered about how that is achieved. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: That will still be the case, and it will be less likely for an editor to break links to the discussions if they try to merge multiple discussions that already have individual section headers. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In which case I fully support it. ps your most recent ping didn't work, but your first one did. I'm not sure why. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is it Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion's template?--333 -blue 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@333-blue: Yes, they both are: {{Rfd2}} is used to list the first/only nomination in a group, and {{Rfd2m}} is used to list the second, third, etc. nominations in a group. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@333-blue:, @Thryduulf:, @Steel1943:, @Arthur Rubin:. Proposing to close, result as merge. After 11 days of silence from the rest of the world we must assume broad consensus, mostly from RfD regulars (with the honourable exception of 333-blue), which is unfortunate but RfD is something of an exclusive club, in the Groucho Marx sense ("I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member"). I propose that Steel1943 to do the work of merging it, I'll draft a doc merge if that helps. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with this being closed as merge. I don't have the skills to do the actual job of merging, but it doesn't bother me who does. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2015 (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.

Template:Rfd2m/helper 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete as unused an unneeded Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd2m/helper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At this point, it does not seem that this template subpage is utilized by any template, including {{Rfd2}} or {{Rfd2m}}. In fact, it seems that the previous functionality of this template is now built into the two aforementioned templates in one way or another without substituting or transcluding this nominated template. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, see a related discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 3#Template:Rfd2/helper. Since the nominated template was created via a move instead of the closing action taken, I'm not sure if this template qualifies for speedy deletion criterion G4, so I'm not tagging it as so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this will go as part of the RfM above, so is not worth worrying about right now. Also, purely out of interest, what does "utilized" mean that "used" doesn't? Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2015 (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.

Template:Alliance Boots 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 section.

The result of the discussion was redirect to {{Walgreens Boots Alliance}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Template:Alliance Boots (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The company this relates to has now merged with another, and this template has now been superceded by {{Walgreens Boots Alliance}}. Cloudbound (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Walgreens Boots Alliance per the nominator's rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Template:Walgreens Boots Alliance"- Walgreens is now part of Walgreens Boots Alliance, therefore, both Template:Walgreens and Template:Alliance Boots should redirect to Template:Walgreens Boots Alliance. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2015 (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.

Template:Ivory messagebox/collapsed 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete as redudant to for example {{collapse}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ivory messagebox/collapsed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Less than 10 transclusions, redundant to any of the other collapse templates, such as {{collapse}}:Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (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.

Template:Programmes broadcast by Zindagi 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. I can't say I really understand this nomination, or why programs being syndicated is an argument to delete a navbox, but there are no objections. So no quorum, no objection to re-creation Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Programmes broadcast by Zindagi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant. Plus the shows are syndication of Pakistani dramas. Derevation^{Give Me Five} 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The template is redundant to what? Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are templates of other Pakistani tv channels like Template:Geo Entertainment Programs, Template:Hum TV Programs and Template:ARY Digital Programs. Plus the shows are syndication (rerun) in India. This is main reason for deletion. Thanks Derevation^{Give Me Five} 09:03, 3 January 2015 (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.

Template:Slant 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete as redundant to wikimarkup, html and css styles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is there any benefit to having a longer and more complicated template over simply using the italic marks??? This really seems superfluous. See also previous discussion of similar template: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 13#Template:Italic -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete, because I can't see why you couldn't just use normal italics, and all of the current uses are in sections of templates where (according to tests I've just made) normal italics would work equally well. That being said, this kind of template is typically created for situations when normal markup won't work; I'm willing to change my vote if shown a situation where this works and italics don't. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to that test? ''{{#property:P1451}}'' gives (used _ instead of "): _'_ (bold with a spare ' ) but {{slant|{{#property:P1451}}}} gives: {{slant|{{#property:P1451}}}}. btw. a page with {{Infobox settlement | motto = ''{{#property:P1451}}'' }} gives Motto: ' Christian75 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Christian75, I ran it only in preview mode and never hit "save", so I didn't have a link until just now. Look at this diff: I took the current text of Alicia, Bohol and dumped it into the sandbox without changes, and in the second edit I replaced {{slant}} with italics. Something's wrong with the {{#property:P1451}}, because it's not displaying at all, either way, but we can be confident that the italics aren't making it worse. I then tested normal text (just removing the braces, so "#property:P1451" was the text of the motto), and {{slant}} and '' worked equally well. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It seems that this is used only by the author, a new editor, in info boxes. Perhaps we could ask him if there was some problem that he was trying to solve. There might be another reason for the problem, or another solution. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This author is making several new templates, and by the looks of it, not for technical reasons but just as short-cuts for repetitive text strings. The author was notified on his talk page about this deletion nomination. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tried what links here. It used at least in a infobox this way | motto = {{slant|{{#property:P1451}}}} - it could be subst: but normaly we dont have wiki markup in the articles - Christian75 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this is used in connection with wikidata property in a generalised infobox. If in fact instantiation does not have the property, then infobox displays something like Motto: '

I've not read anywhere, probably because it's not true, that templates are only for technical solutions. I can think of any number which are there merely to obviate tedious repetition of strings. Viz. {{Population census prose}}.

--Roger Camotes (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I recall, we had templates on Wikipedia with similar functions a few years ago, but since they do more harm than good if not substituted, I would even rather them not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons see User talk:Magioladitis - section about #property for Cebu / Bohol

Roger Camotes (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; use ... instead. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. I'm sure none of the alternatives proposed work except {{tag|i}}, and I'm not sure about that one. In most contexts, ''{{{1}}} '' will work, but I'm not sure if it works in all cases.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant ... — This, that and the other (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 - The problem with ... are AWB-users and other "robots" which will change it back to '' Christian75 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 - Adding a space within the ... or WikiMarkup for italics seems to serve the intended purpose, but I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 - Comment – If it is kept, could it be renamed to something unique like Slanttpl or Slantparam? "Slant" seems like a name that should be reserved for something that users might use. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the solution would be to add the wikidata feature directly to {{infobox settlement}} and get rid of all these hacks just for adding information from wikidata to {{infobox settlement}}. if this is need more generally, then we should have a {{italic property}} template which does both the italics and grabs the property from wikidata. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the slant template is added to all mottos in the infobox, without realizing why we use italics (should actually only be used for foreign language). So the application of the italics across the board without following MOS:ITALIC should be discouraged. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, especially with Frietjes' solution. —PC-XT+ 02:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frietjes. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:19, 17 January 2015 (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.

Template:Provinces of ISIL 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Provinces of ISIL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar template at Template:Wilayats of ISIL recently deleted. Wilayat (Arabic)=Province (English) See deletion discussions that deleted all the articles and/or redirects previously added to this page except one which is still pending deletion.
Closed Deletion Discussions on this template, related lists, and its contents

Speedy delete per G4 (recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion). A template entitled "Wilayats of ISIL" was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Wilayat Kirkuk (ISIL) less than a week ago. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the history — it's been edited lots of times. Even without being able to look at the deleted content, you should be able to see that it's nowhere close to the deleted page, or even if you think that some revision is identical to what was deleted before, there are other revisions that weren't deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from anything else, it only has three links, and two of those are redirects. It is also unused in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. This is just idiocy, plain and simple. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have blocked 175.110.139.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per WP:NOTHERE, see this ANI thread, and also AbuMarwanHadid (talk · contribs), technically the creator of the template, per WP:DUCK. I would delete the template they created right now, except that that would mean wheel warring with Nyttend. Nyttend, I don't quite understand why you restored it. Your reason seems more of a formality. Bishonen | talk 01:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Because the subject and the namespace are the only similarities between the deleted content and the extant pages. This is not an IAR situation, and there's no other good reason to countenance abuse of the criteria. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under speedy for nonsense. Real Countries like Canada have Provinces. Terrorist groups have geographically dispursed targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.37.75 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is completely WP:UNDUE as it promotes the idea that certain areas are controlled by an amorphous group. In any article where this template might be useful, simple prose with wikilinked-articles, all based on reliable sources, is the most appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2015 (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.

Template:Lead too long 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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep. There is consensus that its usefulness outweighs its obnoxiousness and distraction to the reader Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lead too long (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is completely unnecessary. Warning boxes should not be placed at the top of articles for minor manual of style issues. If the lead is too long, which is often a subjective, borderline judgement, a user can either reduce the lead by editing, or leave a request on the article talk page. The lead being too long is not such a risk to the reader that it needs to be called out at the top of an article with a warning box, unlike more serious problems such as COI, NPOV or Notability. In a nutshell, we need to cut down on the rampant maintenance template spam, and encourage editors to fix articles or discuss fixes on article talk pages, rather than slapping tags all over articles, defacing them for relatively minor issues. Jehochman ^Talk 03:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed! Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maintenance templates are for situations when you can't easily fix the problem. In this situation, it's easy to cut content if it's not supported elsewhere in the article, easy to move extraneous referenced content into the body, and easy to remove the more detailed stuff if the intro simply repeats too large a percentage of the body. Nyttend (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An editor may not be well-versed enough in a subject to know exactly what to trim from the lead, but still recognize when it may be too long and wish to inform editors who are more suited to do the trimming. It also comes in handy on Beyoncé discography and Eminem discography, where I have recently used this template - discography articles typically do not include prose beyond the lead, so there's not much place to move the extra content. If an editor feels that cleanup tags "deface" the article, perhaps they should be bold, correct the issue, and remove the tag. Cleanup tags are helpful, as they point out problems other editors might not notice. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that what the talk page is for? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the talk page. The article page is for the article. Only very serious warnings that call into question the article's accuracy or suitability should be placed on the article page itself. A reader does not need to be warned about the length of the lead. This template damages website usability by placing unnecessary clutting in the user's view, preventing them from getting to the article that they want to read. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Chase said, it helps inform editors that reduction is needed, and sometimes the user placing the tag isn't sure what to remove themselves. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor doesn't know how to fix it adding an orange template just makes the page worse. This template is purely damaging the encyclopedia. It states the obvious because any reader can see how long the lead is; it isn't calling out hidden bias or problems that could deceive the reader. How long a lead should be is very subjective and article improvement suggestions should be placed on the article talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – We have a template for leads that are too short, might as well have one for leads that are too long. As noted, an experienced editor can usually fix this problem in less time than in takes to look up the template in the list of maintenance templates. But it does provide a couple of convenient links for editors who may not have read the MOS. And if it makes life easier for Twinkle users, why not? – Margin1522 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we should delete {{lead too short}} also, to be fair. Let's not favor short leads over long leads! I suppose that new templates could be made that would be suitable for article talk pages, the place where editors are supposed to make recommendations about article improvements. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that one I would want to keep. It's something you might not notice, as opposed to TLDR. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need to interrupt a reader to warn them that the lead of an article is "too short"? Please give me some sort of rational explanation why we should deface articles with comments that belong on the article talk pages? Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the lead is a summary of the article. If its too short it probably doesnt mention important parts of the article - this often happend after a merge. Christian75 (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is of such critical importance that we must warn the user? As if the article might be a copyright violation, riddled with COI, and slanted away from NPOV? In what way do maintenance template improve the user experience. If everybody tags every perceived issue with an article, no matter how minor, our articles become unreadable. This is just daft. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for letting the reader get to the article as quickly as possible. I am on something of a campaign against shortcut hatnotes. Also when I see a maintenance template that has been sitting there since 2009, I compare the article now with 2009 and if the problem has been fixed remove the template. My impression is that the one about the lead is not used very often, and appropriate when it is used. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Chasewc91 - Christian75 (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful maintenance template, one of a set of lead-related templates.

It seems to me the nominator has a problem with the use of maintenance templates for what he personally considers minor issues. Well, then he should raise that issue at some forum, like WP:Village pump, but he should not start tagging individual templates for deletion. As to his worry that the template is sometimes used incorrectly, or in borderline cases. If he thinks any specific usage is incorrect, he should remove the tag, or open a discussion on that specific article's talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think it's overused, and when it is used it always seems to be very appropriate, when you compare it to the guidelines on the lead page.Onel5969 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... if modified. The only time I use it is when there are too many paragraphs (more than 4), but unlike some templates, you can't add a reason. Also, it should say to discuss it on the talk page (again, like others do). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The beauty about maintenance templates is that they can be removed from the page if another editor either resolves the issue or disagrees with the template. Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in general, I like maintenance templates and don't believe that useful ones should be deleted without good reason. If excessive use of maintenance templates is a problem, it should be addressed at a wider scale with an RfA instead of targeting individual templates for deletion. —Ost (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ost316: Umm... you mean RfC, right? Just wondering since I've never seen a maintenance template run for administrator before, but there's a first time for everything, I guess. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct; My apoligies. —Ost (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In parallel with this discussion I started a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). One editor recommended Wikipedia:Responsible tagging, an essay that I would like to work on and eventually promote to policy. My concern with this template is that it's pretty serious to put something like this at the top of an article. I found one at the top of Gamma ray burst, a featured article. One random editor decided they knew better than all the featured article reviewers who look at it and approved the article. A critical element of policy should be that maintenance tags provide specific advice about what to fix. Editors encountering these things shouldn't have to guess what the person who added the template was thinking. Indeed, we should recommend that maintenance templates be explained on the talk page, and that any template that is unclear can be removed. I see that people want to keep this template, so I will withdraw the proposal to delete and instead work on means to ensure responsible tagging. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As useful as any other maintenance template. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [quote] "we need to cut down on the rampant maintenance template spam, and encourage editors to fix articles or discuss fixes on article talk pages, rather than slapping tags all over articles, defacing them for relatively minor issue". While this is true it is not done best by reducing the number of templates but by changing the user's attitude in using them more restrictively. Cheers, Rfassbind -talk
Keep. Like all maintenance templates, this template fulfills an important function of identifying articles that have discrete areas that need to be improved. Many editors use this flagging and the categories it creates to seek out areas to improve the encyclopedia. Deletion of the template would be a net loss to Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just a maintenance template. I see no reason to delete it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We should not clutter articles with this sort of thing. Haukur (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this is a different type of maintenance template from, for example, refimprove, the lead too long template is also useful. A very long lead is just as unwieldy as a very long section. Epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't say keep (looks like I don't have to); however, I don't particularly like those large, ugly maint. tags, either. Unfortunately, they serve a purpose and the issue is not how important the problem is. No, the issue is that there is a problem and the tagging editor does not know how to fix it. Period. What's that editor going to do? Go to the talk page and admit there that s/he doesn't know what s/he's doing? No. Leave a maint. tag like this and someone like me, who hates those damn things, will come along and fix the problem. Problem resolved – maint. tag disappears – no problemo. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 17:20, 12 January 2015 (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.