Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 10



Template:Mandel Rovers F.C. Squad

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete Unused template for football club without a Wikipedia page. They appear to be a 5-a-side team. Tassedethe (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary; I might add that the fact that at least half the entries are not redlinked is deceptive, as many of these players have common names that they share in common with somebody else who is notable. Kansan (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:Ref improve section

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. No consensus to delete this template redirect. It seems to have some uses still. Ruslik_ Zero 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Deprecated template since 2009, and redundant to in the main  template. No need to keep a redundant template around. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. We have Unreferenced section and BLP unsourced section, Disputed-section and probably more. If we need to categorise the pages differently if the problem is only located in a section then it's better if we keep it. Otherwise we should consider a centralised discussion to deprecate all section specific templates. In 2009 we only changed the ciode to be compatible with Refimprove. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Questions — Is there a similar discussion for unreferenced section? If so, where? If not, why not? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral — I think it would be useful to implement a category to hold those articles where specific sections have been highlighted as needing citation improvement. This could be done with the least technical woes by using the 'ref improve section' template, but could certainly be done using some properly crafted code in the parameterized 'refimprove' template. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment — If I'm reading responses right, some of the 'keep' advocates are arguing for retention because it is more straightforward in the sense of WYPIWYM (What You Put Is What You Mean). Maybe this template could be treated like some others (I think fact is one case) where the template is retained, but a bot is used to transform the instance from  to  without human intervention.  This would be a matter of "active deprecation"; right now the template is in a state of "passive deprecation". --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In use, so have a bot replace it with the preferred usage before deleting, or make some sort of redirect. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep : Discussion; If I am not mistaken the refimprove|section is to be placed at the top of an article. If so I feel there is a need to keep a template that addresses section issues to be placed in that section. I use the template if there are several references, the article has another tag but a section is lacking, and I just want to call attention to this section problem. I have a practice of revisiting articles I tag to keep career tags from happening. Please disregard my discussion if Wikipedia is running out of space but other than that I would like to see the template kept and options never hurt. Otr500 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; Updated opinion after comments. Otr500 (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * , i.e. with the section parameter, is supposed to go in the affected section., without the section parameter, goes at the top of the article.   is redundant to the parameter function of the main template.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand about "refimprove". This means the "refimprove|section." could be left alone and used in an appropriate section or used at the top replacing "|section" with the appropriate section name correct? Otr500 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that would not work as the template stands at the moment. That would a need parameter called section, something like {refimprove|section= } . Rich Farmbrough, 12:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

*Neutral Does someone want to explain why this template is harmful?Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (after replacing with ) - I agree with the nom, that this template essentially is a hard-coded version of the parameterized 'Refimprove' template. If ever there is a need to categorize separately articles with section-specific issues, then we can code this parameter-specific categorization into the main template. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The section parameter of refimprove can handle the need.  Dough 48  72  21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The benefit of Ref improve section is that it fixed the first parameter to section. In the last I 've seen other parameters of Refimprove like "following section", "last section" or "section named History" and the template was put everuwhere in the page (top, bottom, to the top of the section, to the bottom of the section). -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. All it does it call ... there's no real harm in keeping it.  howcheng   {chat} 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: redundant. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 05:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per SchuminWeb. — Hucz (talk · &#32;contribs) 07:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep sure it's redundant but still in use by loads of articles; it would be a mamouth task of replacing it on every single transclusion. There's no real harm in keeping it. Cj005257 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment — Sure, it would be a lot of work but Wikipedians have done such work. Like, when Wikipedians agreed to change 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war people changed the text and are still doing it. -- Some Dude With AUserName (talk with me!) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: It is redundant, to be quite frank, and there are more specific templates.  The only reason I can see to keep it is that it has over 4,000 transclusions and changing them all to more specific templates will be a bit of work.  &mdash;Onore Baka Sama(speak 12:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't really have a use and if it is brought into redundancy by the template, then it is unnecessary. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 14:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: i think everyone is leaning toward the idea that it would be used multiple times in one article, which if it were, then we use the main one. But i find this good when everything but one section is affecting the entire article.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right - the concept of the template is sound, and no one is challenging that. We just want to remove this one that is redundant to a parameter in the main refimprove template.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete after replacement with . Frietjes (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Is redundant with .  Someone will need to run a bot to do this replacement (or most of it). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:47pm • 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, too many transclusions, no difference whether kept or not. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 06:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I lean towards Delete, per the nom. But is there a technical reason why there are, for example, templates for Unreferenced and Unreferenced section but only refimprove will be kept with a section parameter? ScottSteiner ✍  06:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that no one has gotten around to nominating the other template. If there is consensus to delete in this discussion, then I don't think it will be long before Unreferenced section is nominated and replaced. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as soon as usage removed from article space. Keep until it is used. --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a consensus to delete, then the template would be deleted only after all transclusions had been replaced (see the TfD holding cell). -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, yes the functionality provided by this template can be provided by refimprove, but this is a legitimate shortcut, this way users don't have to add the | . Moreover there are many templates whose functionality could be provided by others more general, this is not a sufficient reason to delete if usage is considerable, and this template is still widely used, it's not deprecated. The section versions of the refimprove, unreferenced, blp unsourced and plenty other templates are widely used. Deleting this template would set a precedent for others, and it would have no positive effect, it would just annoy people for no reason, would require a massive work of transition. I don't see the point. Cenarium (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Sometimes you have very uneven articles with only one or two sections seriously flawed. If you put "article" needs refs, someone often will move it up to top of page, no one will pay attention to the section that needs work, and nothing gets done. We need more "section" templates, not fewer. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding will generate the text "section", not "article", and it can be placed in the section(s) needing work. A separate "section" template is not needed, since refimprove already has a "section" parameter. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep section versions should have a dedicated caller. It also matches naming of section only templates, so as a series of templates, a common name convention caller is useful. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant per nom. The less of these redundant templates we have floating around the better. Editors unsure how to use the pipe can refer to the documentation. - Ruodyssey (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure, there are other ways to produce this message, and I don't happen to use it myself, but a lot of people do.  Wikipedia is complicated enough without us deliberately breaking things that people already know how to use.  Letting this template exist doesn't hurt anything, and it does help less experienced people.  If you want to see less of it, then ask some AWB and bot operators to start swapping it out when they're editing articles for other reasons anyway.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful shortcut that allows easy way of calling the refimprove template. Unlike with articles, templates and redirects can be kept because they are useful and this is a case of it. Also, it's helpful for people who edit from devices that cannot create the "|" character (for example, my smartphone's default input does not have the "|" as an option). Regards  So Why  19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I find typing "refimprovesect" far preferable to "refimprove|section", especially if I'm not on a full/familiar keyboard. Additionally, I'm unclear as to what harm is being caused to WP by retaining this template...is it being misused in some manner? Doniago (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having a bot automatically change "refimprovesect" to "refimprove|section" would be win-win. Those of us unable or unwilling to type "refimprove|section" would be able to type "refimprovesect", and the articles tagged would go in the proper category so that it is standardized. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: When only a section of an article needs additional citations for verification, then this template proves worthy. I'm surprised by the many delete votes for this temp! &mdash; Abhishek  Talk to me 05:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for the many delete !votes is that this template is not needed in order to tag "only a section of an article": accomplishes the same thing. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The main problem that I see is that refimprove|Section is sensitive to mistakes. Like adding refimprove to sections without parameter which can produce errors in categorisation or to bot checking for pages. Moreover, I find inappropriate that the discussion is only for this template and we don't discuss of how to form a general strategy for templates in section. We can't have separate discussion for Unrefernced section for example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As others have pointed out, "refimprove|Section" is too sensitive to mistakes and this is not a stand-alone template, it's a legitimate "redirect" to Refimprove. As for there being "No need to keep a redundant template around", Expand which went through a very lengthy deletion discussion and another lengthy deletion review, proved that not to be the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As stated above, it is helpful for specifying the section that is needed to be referenced. It would also mess up tools like Twinkle.  JoeGazz  ▲ 18:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No functionality is being lost if we get rid of this template, and Twinkle doesn't use the refimprove section functionality. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – I didn't even know was an option.  It's not there in the documentation, so the documentation for the alternative is inadequate.  Once the issue is addressed I'll reconsider my stance. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gradual merge with Template:Refimprove I like Ceyockey's idea of having a bot replace with  sitewide. Right now, however, the template is in heavy use and shouldn't be deleted. (I also think that the constant presence of "this template is being proposed for deletion" across the site is a bit ugly.) Once the template is mostly gone from the site, it can be replaced with a message saying "Please use  ." Or the bot could be kept around. Someone the Person (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete after replacing all instances – If a bot can replace all instances of this template, then the template can be deleted. — mc10 ( t / c ) 20:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do not understand the need to delete this template as all it does is call the main refimprove template with the section parameter in place. The template was merged with refimprove as a result of this discussion and the discussion in the section above it (I was involved in both), with the reason being template maintenance. I don't understand why we would delete this template and then employ a bot to go round fixing something which wasn't broken until we deleted it? I am willing to change my opinion if someone can explain the pressing need for it's deletion - I may be missing something?. Also, what would happen to the redirects such as refimprovesect? ascidian  | talk-to-me  20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - if full deletion is required it should only be done once all instances are removed by a bot and replaced with the Ref improve|section. Once completed the template can be renominated and I would support it at that point. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If this discussion closes as "delete", then the template initially would be placed in the TfD holding cell for processing. Deletion would take place only after all transclusions had been replaced. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think this is doing any harm whatsoever. I agree with Chaosdruid that, if it is deleted, all instances need to be replaced first. Completely missed Black Falcon's comment, sorry. &mdash; anndelion    &#10059;   16:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's the template equivalent of a redirect. I don't see any pressing need to delete it or any benefit in doing so. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because there are other ways of accomplishing this, doesn't mean that retaining it does any harm. I have no objection to a bot that replaces it with the other template, however. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree it's deprecated, but it's not doing any harm as is. Maybe in the future if/when it's not transcluded on so many articles we can revisit this issue. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 02:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per P. D. Cook and others. If this does get deleted it needs to be replaced first, and made a redirect as well, to minimize chaos.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a moot point whether {clean up type|section} or {clean up type section} is clearer, easier to remember, easier to type, simpler etc.. Maintaining the extra "section" templates is a very small workload, if they reuse the main template, only requiring the trivial addition of any new pass-through parameters, which is a once in a blue moon event. The only complexity is where the parent template has foolishly been deleted, as with expand, and even that could be brought back into the fold. Rich Farmbrough, 12:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete. Wish we could get rid of the main template refimprove and just leave the section refimprove, never mind this. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More a response to your edit summary than what you've written above, you do realise that we know have the ridiculous situation that Expand still exists, we're just not supposed to use it, don't you? I'd hate to see that happen here. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A bot deletes the expand template if you try to use it. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because it creates work to remove it, it is in use and removing it would disrupt those who use it, it does no harm, it's good to have options, and because people sometimes have to work with keyboards that don't have access to | so they'd need to go look for usage of | to copy and paste so having an easy workaround option is useful. There doesn't appear to be a valid argument for deleting, other than there is an alternative/substitute/back-up, and I don't see that having an alternative which is both used and useful is genuine grounds for deletion. I'd say there is argument for not just keeping, but for also creating alternative templates which provide a workaround option to using |.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Convenient widely-used alias. One should not have to guess/memorize what a template's exact name is. --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Please note that currently the refimprove template contains no instructions on the section parameter. Whether this one is deleted or not, we need something there.  • DP •  {huh?} 20:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It creates work to remove it. It is functional, it highlights particular areas of articles that need work, especially articles where the rest of the article is fine. It is not harmful.Keetanii (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a useful alias for that does no harm and highlights sections that have far too few references. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I just found out that the template Refimprove section that I found on Template messages/Cleanup and have been using since I started editing (October 2011) is deprecated (and has been since 2009 if I understand the talk page correctly) due to another editor updating one of my edits. After going to the Refimprove section page I found the following '' The template  is deprecated. Please use instead. '' When I went to the Refimprove (this) page the documentation shows no such parameter to use. In fact there is a line  There is also a refimprove section and the normal variations. that may need to be changed. Also I suggest that a note be installed telling of the deprecation of Refimprove section and a direction to the Refimprove page in any guide, policy, etc. like Template messages/Cleanup that the template is located. Or am I off base with my understanding of being deprecated (do not use anymore - being phased out) ? -- Rife Ideas  Talk  14:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Keep:If the article in question isn't a BLP, and has some but not all of the sections referenced, then it has to be used in the section. And before I get carried away, I'll also add the other "Keeps". Leave it alone.-- The Master   of Mayhem  11:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Informational — I believe I triggered this deletion discussion with my original post meant to address what I thought was an documentation problem at Template talk:Refimprove I am reposting that post here for further discussion:
 * Comment Regardless of the outcome here, in my opinion these documentation issues need to be addressed by an administrator (and more experienced editor than me) as some are protected and other similar situations I am not aware of may exist.-- Rife Ideas  Talk  14:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per SoWhy, Useful Alias. FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  19:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Do bots get a vote here? Based on this edit I think Yobot would vote "keep". --AussieLegend (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per and . Distractions like this TfD take away from improving the references in articles. 67.101.7.246 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.