Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 10

< April 9	April 11 >

April 10

Template:Academic-written review

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Academic-written review (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This sounds like a TOU violation to me. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think it violates the TOU. The content added to Wikipedia is provided under appropriate licenses for the explicit and sole purpose of improving the encyclopedia.^[1] The template is a useful marker to indicate that the content has been externally peer reviewed. From Wikipedia's point of view, the accompanying academic review is a useful bonus. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is either a delete or a talkspace, or possibly "convert to tracking template". The publication of an article as an article published elsewhere fits into the Further reading category, if we think it's important to navel-gaze, but it doesn't particularly need its own separate template to do so. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The content is generated under a dual publication model, so there should be no copyright issues with it. Whether in main space or talk page, having these templates makes it easy find, track, and immediately understand the different ways in which quality academic-reviewed content has been added to Wikipedia via various Wikipedia institutional partnerships, initiatives, and publication models. The template has the added value of building trust in the quality of the content if kept in the main space. If you think it should be moved to the talk page, please add that and other suggestions for improving it to the template's talk page. There were only a few suggestions from the community available when creating the template, so its format and placement was based on the Template:Academic_peer_reviewed under discussion below. Gtsulab (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it should be used only on talk pages, not within articles themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, and do not relegate to talk pages. Attracting academic contributors to Wikipedia is a challenge, to the extent that there are guidelines about it. Advertising academic contributions prominently can contribute to addressing this challenge. If and when this template becomes too widespread and therefore a nuisance, it will be time to discuss removing it, or replacing it with a discreet logo of the GA, FA type. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encouraging academic editors is a priority that I think strongly benefits Wikipedia. This template can furthermore can benefit the reader as a quality indication. While this duplicates our GA and FA system, some readers may trust a peer review process more or less than our system. Many readers are looking for something able to be cited. Daask (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing any concerns. How is it a TOU violation? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on article page, possibly in a different location if perceived as too prominent in current one. For anyone wishing to cite information found on Wikipedia, this is an indication that the article text itself is a reliable source for once. That's a significant shortcut to the usual need to seek out the individual sources (which are possibly unobtainable). Readers are not going to find that indication if it is hidden on the talk page. This is information for readers, not editors. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Gene Wiki Reviews—Raising the quality and accessibility of information about the human genome". Gene. 592 (2): 235–238. 2016-11-05. doi:10.1016/j.gene.2016.04.053. ISSN 0378-1119.

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).

Template:Academic peer reviewed

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Academic peer reviewed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why is this on the articles themselves? Doesn't this stuff belong on the talk page? Also, it doesn't need to be this big. Just a italicized hatnote would suffice. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you proposing changes or deletion? How many Wikipedia articles have been formally published? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that having on the main page is pretty reasonable. Templates such as {{InterPro_content}} or {{Citizendium}} are displayed in mainspace. Similarly content quality templates like {{Confusing}} or {{Missing_information}} are presented at the top of a page, though I think that the references section is the logical location to indicate that the article effectively draws heavily from a main peer reviewed source (e.g. Circular_permutation_in_proteins is based on Bliven, S; Prlić, A (2012). "Circular Permutation in Proteins". PLOS Computational Biology. 8 (3): e1002445.). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We provide the majority of our article quality templates because something needs fixing, not because some external review has been performed on the template. Those that we provide because of article review are the GA/FA icons, which are unobtrusive and not intended to appear as article content. Templates like Citizendium are provided so that we can meet the terms of the copyleft licenses used on Wikipedia (though they are not strictly necessary). --Izno (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something closer to the Gene#Main_textbook indication of the main source for an article would be relevant. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This one looks and feels like it should be a part of the {{article history}} series of templates (old AFD multi, etc.), rather than something placed on the main page (which makes it look like advertising on the one hand while looking like we aren't certain of our non-reliability on the other). I would suggest moving to the talk page. It certainly shouldn't be in the references section regardless, since it is not a reference. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether in main space or talk page, having these templates makes it easy find, track, and immediately understand the different ways in which quality academic-reviewed content has been added to Wikipedia via various Wikipedia institutional partnerships, initiatives, and publication models. The template has the added value of building trust in the quality of the content if kept in the main space. If the issue is with its size, why not propose suggestions on improving the template on the template talk page instead of deleting it? Gtsulab (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it should be used only on talk pages, not within articles themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on talk pages it is surely no bother to anybody, and indeed helpful. It is a valuable indicator of article quality, given the formal peer review that is involved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, and do not relegate to talk pages, for the same reasons as the previous template. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encouraging academic editors is a priority that I think strongly benefits Wikipedia. This template can furthermore can benefit the reader as a quality indication. While this duplicates our GA and FA system, some readers may trust a peer review process more or less than our system. Many readers are looking for something able to be cited. Daask (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but put it on the talk page. May be good to integrate it with the GA/FA system? Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from above topic - applies to both) Keep on article page, possibly in a different location if perceived as too prominent in current one. For anyone wishing to cite information found on Wikipedia, this is an indication that the article text itself is a reliable source for once. That's a significant shortcut to the usual need to seek out the individual sources (which are possibly unobtainable). Readers are not going to find that indication if it is hidden on the talk page. This is information for readers, not editors. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:16, 13 April 2018 (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).

Template:Current sports transaction

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current sports transaction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lizard (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Too specific"? This is a specific template created for a specific problem that occurs over and over again. Where is it written that we can't have a template that is "too specific"? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator provided no alternatives, but a generic template like {{current}} would not be as informative. A sports transaction frequently has lots of breaking news that will result in one or two lines of article updates (e.g. signed, released, traded), as opposed to generic current events that spawn new articles and multiple paragraphs of rapidly changing text. A link is made in this template to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions to provide specific background on the situation for readers and editors as it relates to sports. This is also consistent with other specific templates at Wikipedia:Current event templates. Less is not more in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is used all the time and is needed if Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia vs. a source of "breaking news." Athlete transactions get a lot of activity, starting with the first rumors of a signing. There is value in specifically calling this out. Rikster2 (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2018 (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).

Template:DabprimaryExpand

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 19. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:WWFinuse

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too specific. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:47, 10 April 2018 (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).

Template:WPJournalsCotW-Article

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).

The result of the discussion was Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPJournalsCotW-Article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Remnant of the time when almost every Wikiproject had a COTW. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be used in the near to medium future, but why delete project history? Someone has unlinked this template from the pages it was on. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no objection to moving to WP:WikiProject Journals/COTW template. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
archive in project space as suggested by Izno. Frietjes (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2018 (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).

Template:Width

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another obvious driveby tag; most Wikipedians would just BOLDly reduce the width of whatever object was too wide. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, easier to just fix the problem, or (if it's controversial), start a discussion on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Daask (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:WH-transwiki-from

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WH-transwiki-from (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:45, 10 April 2018 (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).

Template:WH-transwiki-to

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WH-transwiki-to (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:45, 10 April 2018 (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).

Template:WA botmark

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WA botmark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Remnant of a pre-draftspace process. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Daask (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:Vital construction

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vital construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Part of something that appears to have died on arrival. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Collaboration is dead. Daask (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:USRD-wrongdir

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USRD-wrongdir (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific; use the "reason" parameter of the generic "cleanup" template. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—template also categorizes articles so tagged into Category:U.S. road articles written in the wrong direction, something the proposed solution would not do. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I totally agree with Imzadi. This is an integral template for USRD (U.S. Roads). Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as mentioned, the purpose of the template is not so much to display the cleanup message as it is to categorize the pages so they can be fixed. (I am the template creator.) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- Agreeing with everyone above. —JJ B^e ^rs 21:43, 17 April 2018 (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).

Template:Unreferenced small

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:Unlinked references

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unlinked references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything can be linked to. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion nom makes sense. Template is quite a bit unused as a result (only about 10 uses in mainspace). Delete. --Izno (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK fix those 10 and see if any more occur in the next year. If not, I will support deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

That's not how it works. No reference requires any links. So I don't need to "fix" anything. --Izno (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the citation is sufficient to look up the source (meaning it doesn't merit Template:Ref expand), then it's good enough for Wikipedia. No article needs to be marred by this article cleanup message. If you care, fix it yourself.

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).

Template:Units attention

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Units attention (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Imperial is not used on Wikipedia; having an "add imperial" template is useless. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the template is not "add imperial" but "add something other than SI": See WP:MOSNUM, specifically WP:UNIT:

"In non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97 pounds (44 kg)."

"In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:

UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);

the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use);

the primary units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds;"

and so on. This template is useful, and nominating it for deletion is frivolous or cafeless and wastes other editors' time. PamD 08:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a major mistake to think that Imperial is not used on Wikipedia. Both Imperial and Customary are used. We also use other systems, and not just SI, particularly traditional area measurements.
Just as importantly this template may be asking for SI units to be added.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not using the unit system you prefer isn't a sufficient flaw in an article to merit being marred by a cleanup template. Daask (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the nominator is mistaken that imperial measurements (or the closely related US customary measures where they differ slightly) are not in use on Wikipedia. In fact, per MOS:CONVERSION, in many cases we will have two systems of measurement in use. Imzadi 1979 → 02:38, 13 April 2018 (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).

Template:TrainingPage

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have 2+ sandboxes and two whole wikis for testing. Why do we need this template? Saying it was "just training" is not a valid "get-out-of-speedy-deletion-free" card. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I support deletion here. It's unused save for one editor's subpages. Training pages don't need to be called out with a banner template of this sort. However, I explicitly reject "there are these other places" as a deletion rationale. --Izno (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just use Template:Sandbox heading or no heading at all. This seems to be for temporary uses, in which it doesn't seem necessary at all. Daask (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:Time references needed

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:Table 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Table section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless spinoff of "expand section" template; doesn't the "list to table" template have a section parameter? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not intended to be expand narrative text. It's to convert text into tables when it suit it better. Yug (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a perennial suggestion to delete "Foo section" tempaltes, and a countervailing one to remove {{{section}}} parameters. Having both costs nothing and satisfies all. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 10 April 2018 (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).

Template:Substituted template

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Substituted template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is now useless, as we have the "unsubst" module. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to revert and/or add the unsubst wrapper to the parent template. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2018 (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).

Template:Sports venue to be demolished

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sports venue to be demolished (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. --Izno (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that not very useful. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2018 (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).

Template:Sources exist

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).

The result of the discussion was keep, per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 20:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sources exist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an almost-useless template; why not insert the sources yourself? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously useful to record that there is an assertion that sources do exist and should be inserted. --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (template's creator). The template is used during reviewing to indicate to others that sources were found that demonstrate notability. A reviewer (whether AfC or NPP?NPR) is not required to add sources that are found, but notability depends on sources that WP:NEXIST. Contrary to the nom's assertion, adding the sources would often require adding content to the article as well (i.e. how can you cite a source if the facts for which it could be cited are not yet present in the article?). The template gives a handy way for reviewers to indicate to others that the subject was found to be notable during a source search during review, which helps reduce replicated work and disuades users that might otherwise nominate the article for deletion based on a lack of sources currently in the article (something that they shouldn't do per WP:BEFORE, but which commonly happens, also there is no guarantee that every other person that does a source search finds the same sources you did). As you can see there are a lot of reasons why a reviewer might use this template, and it helps reduce the workload on reviewers while also allowing them to pass on information about the source search that they did. It is currently only transcluded on 25 pages because it is not one of the maintenance templates in the page curation tools (which we cannot update, it has to be done by the WMF), and I haven't started a discussion to get it added to the twinkle tagging tool yet. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valuable for educators reviewing student edits and encouraging students to improve their contributions. Gtsulab (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it will only be used temporally on a page but one of the best ideas at AfC in a long time. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — there are reasons that you might not be able to add sources but you can add the template (i.e. low battery). — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep, seems fine. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2018 (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).

Template:SIA-Conversion-Expand

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 19. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SIA-Conversion-Expand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Self-reference

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self-reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless, as most self-references are BOLDly removed. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously helpful for more polite editing, i.e. a more courteous rather than bold/bullying/mean editor can tag the page, so as to educate/advocate about thought-to-be-appropriate change. If you want to be a bull in a china shop, just go through all editing templates and mark them for deletion. Then participate in edit wars wherever miscommunications ensue. --Doncram (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Helpful for cautious editors who would rather have a second eye/editor verify that something is a self-reference rather than boldly deleting content. If we want to encourage everyone to participate in Wikipedia, its helpful NOT to discourage people who are still learning. Gtsulab (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful. I'm surprised to see this little flood of noms at TfD. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2018 (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).

Template:Rank order

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rank order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Just be bold and remove the numbers yourself. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template links to an alternative method, row numbers, in Help:Sorting. See examples: Category:Articles with tables with fixed row numbers. I clarified the template a bit just now. It hadn't been updated in awhile. Removing the rank numbers might be too bold. People don't realize that there is an alternative that works better, and does the same thing (row numbers). They get pissed when the rank numbers are removed, and not replaced with the alternative (row numbers). And that takes some work. The template serves a purpose in remembering some tables to go back to someday, and hopefully someone will work on them. It also helps developers see the need for their patch that they sometimes work on, but haven't finished due to problems. See: phab:T42618. It supercedes phab:T42634. The "what links here" for that template is used by developers to see the need. As is: Category:Tables that may need a separate rank column. That category is filled in by this template. So please do not delete this template. The specific section in Help:Sorting is: Help:Sorting#Auto-ranking or adding a row numbering column (1,2,3) next to a table. That section title may change, so you may need to look around for it. Many tables are not updated due to the rank order that is changed when a single number in the table is updated. People do not want to have to rewrite all the rank order numbers. So they just leave the table alone, and rarely update it. Others just go ahead and update a few table numbers, and ignore the rank numbers. So the table ends up being completely out of whack. Row numbers solve the problem. There are thousands of tables that this template could be placed on. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful per Timeshifter. Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2018 (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).

Template:Plot notice

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plot notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Essentially the same as that deleted "spoiler" template. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Link to the TfD for the 'spoiler' template, please? For what it's worth, the purpose of this template was to encourage editors to spend time on other parts of the article because the plot is constantly getting rewritten (since there are so many ways to describe the film). It's a waste of time to do a rewrite when the next day (or even hour) someone else rewrites your work. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep: I'm not seeing a clear reason to delete this right now, and it seems fairly clear to me that this could have occasions to be useful. May revise that opinion once the link Erik requested is available for review. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC) After noting that the nominating editor has set up TfDs almost to the point of being tendentious about it (they were warned on their Talk page), I'm forced to conclude that they're not giving as much thought to this process as they should, and am upgrading my vote accordingly. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik. Daask (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is totally not a spoiler template, as its primary purpose is not to say "this could spoil the <subject of article>". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2018 (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).

Template:Plot hook

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:Patronymic

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 19. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:Open draft

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:ODM-List-Awarding-Country

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ODM-List-Awarding-Country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:ODM-List-Country

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ODM-List-Country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:NovelsWikiProject Collaboration

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 19. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:Nothaweng

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too specific. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this template, I am ambivalent of its retention or deletion. As it is, it is only linked from 13 pages, including this one. It seems the template's goal—the more complete inclusion of Hawaiian term diacritics in articles that mention them—is already better tackled by other means. I originally meant well with this template, but its underlying message was basically: "This page lacks the right markings, but I either don't know all of them or I don't want to take the time to add them, so I'm kicking this can down the road for another editor to notice." Problem is, editors only notice by noticing, and only edit by taking the time to edit, and not just by being asked to notice and edit if they don't already have a good understanding and references pertaining to the subject matter. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YOu could notify WP Hawaii All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep This is helpful for readers as well as editors, since they may be trying to look up or learn correct marking themselves. Daask (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:Noleak

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 18. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:No political diagram

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 18. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:No orbit for payload

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No orbit for payload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What do you mean "too specific"? What template would you recommend be used to tag this missing piece of information? Is there a policy or guideline that says "templates should not be too specific"? The deletion criteria says only that templates should not be "redundant or otherwise useless". That's notthe case here. This tag also fills the useful function of adding articles to Category:Articles missing payload orbit parameters. (Template creator) JustinTime55 (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not my area of expertise, but seems to be requesting important information users are likely to be interested in and editors are likely to find if prompted. Daask (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The irony of this nomination is that the nominator did not go into any specific detail on why the message box was "too specific". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 16:33, 17 April 2018 (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).

Template:Music-examples

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Music-examples (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Also copy-pasted from {{cleanup}}. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:20, 10 April 2018 (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).

Template:Listmaybe

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to "current event" template. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:Current is better Daask (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:Jagged 85 cleanup

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jagged 85 cleanup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overspecific template. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was part of a massive and very important project, see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup and WP:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and its talk. Even if the template were not needed again, it should be retained to help anyone trying to follow the history, in much the same way that WP:LTA pages are kept. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in fact this cleanup may not have been completed even now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 10 April 2018 (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).

Template:Invalid references

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:Improve Olympic Sailing Article

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 18. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:Footballer-unknown-status

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footballer-unknown-status (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overspecific cleanup template. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template had been forgotten by Wikipedia:Football member and it seem no new article was tagged in recent years. Matthew_hk t c 09:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. Giant Snowman 10:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a proper cleanup template, and ask WP:WP Footy to deal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete in favor of {{out of date}}. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:Format

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 18. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Template:Election results missing

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election results missing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overspecific cleanup template. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WTF, overspecific? While for Template:Format the deletion nominator's reasoning is "vague". What, you want it to be just exactly calibrated to be in the middle of what you expect to be commonly needed. Silly. --Doncram (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article which discusses an election without giving results is grossly incomplete. Daask (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that is a good useful request template Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2018 (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).

Template:AthAbbr needed

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AthAbbr needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overspecific cleanup template. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, specificity for cleanup tags is good - nothing worse than a generic tag that will just sit at the top of a page forever because no-one has a clue what to do with it. Secondly, this tag is deliberately specific to attract people who know what they are doing with AthAbbr to fix the issues. JDWFC (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Points editors to a useful template they may not be familiar with, and can encourage editors to take easy steps to significantly improve articles for users. Daask (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:Chart dates

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 18. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

[1] "Gene Wiki Reviews—Raising the quality and accessibility of information about the human genome". Gene. 592 (2): 235–238. 2016-11-05. doi:10.1016/j.gene.2016.04.053. ISSN 0378-1119.

[1]