Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 10



Template:Sport honours

 * 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 Subst and Delete -- Selket Talk 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well intentioned, but to quote User:Thumperward, is "codecruft". The purpose of a template is to simplify, rather than to complicate. In this instance, the equivalent Wikicode is easier to understand, and could be made even simpler in 90+% of cases, if we were to assume that a reader can count from one to five. . If this TfD results in consensus for deletion, the template will obviously need to be substituted first. Regards, —WFC— 21:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * delete after replacement or substitution. Frietjes (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * delete complicates things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koppapa (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 June 2011
 * Delete as per the above. Digirami (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I implied in the discussion on WT:FOOTY that I'm quoted from above, this template is simply code for the sake of having code. It is both simpler and more readable just to use the wikicode directly than instantiating a template. Furthermore, there's little evidence that this ever saw the kind of broad adoption which should imply that we should standardise on the layout in question anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete wikicode is more understandable —Chrisportelli (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete renders output that is consistent, but bad. --Dweller (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - but only if replaced by something better. It's fine the way it is, tbh! Salty1984 (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; Not sold on the format and it can be done easier without the template, as talked about above. Mattlore (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't aware of this template and I have to say that a template for sport honours is useful, as I've seen many similar but different formatting styles for sport honours and inconsistency is bad. Maybe you can improve it instead of delete it. ekerazha (talk) 08:18, 18 June 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: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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. Many people have good arguements for deletion, but many others also have clear arguements that they find the template useful and would miss it if it were gone. I don't see a clear consensus emerging in either direction, so I think that the best I could say would be that there is no consensus on how to deal with this. Jayron  32  20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Prior TfDs:
 * WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 25
 * WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 4

As I said in the last TFD, I have never seen this template used for anything other than drive-by tagging. To wit:


 * I have never, in nearly six years of being here, seen anyone add a cleanup template and then explain why they've added it. Never.
 * Although there's a "reason" parameter, I've never seen it used. At least since last time, they've rewritten the docs so that using "reason" is no longer discouraged.
 * Literally 100% of the uses I've seen are either 1.) unidentifiable, or 2.) covered by other tags, such as copyedit, tooshort, trivia, etc.
 * Even if it's a form of cleanup I've not personally witnessed, it has its own template. There are cleanup templates for "too many 'see also's", "too many links", "too many abbreviations", "reads like a how-to", "buzzwords", "pro and con list", etc. Using any of those is far superior, in my opinion, than the clumsy method of using a "cleanup" template with the reason parameter, but again, NOBODY FREAKING DOES THAT.
 * WP:TC says that this template "applies to general problems not addressed by other tags. Please consider using specific cleanup tags first, as specific tags help other editors to easily identify problems in an article." Under what possible circumstance could none of the literally dozens and dozens of cleanup templates fit?
 * I've seen instances where this was slapped on four years ago and nothing's been done. It's as if everyone just ignores the template. And of course, in all of those instances, whatever needed cleanup probably was cleaned up, but no one bothered to remove the tag.

Most of the arguments in the last TFD were based on the template being widely used and "convenient" to n00bs. However, TheFSaviator raised a fairly convincing argument in the last TFD — if a new editor can find cleanup, then they can surely find wikify, refimprove, etc. Also, it seems far too many editors are giving this template some sort of grandfather clause because it's so old — not realizing that it's a relic from when fewer templates existed.

So, it's blatantly obvious that everyone who uses the template is completely ignoring Clarify the cleanup. The template is as prone to drive-by tagging and general abuse as was Expand, and no one wants to do anything about it. As a result, we're just gathering more and more template cruft. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, although deletion will need to be carefully thought through in order to salvage something from this horrendous waste of space. Let me be clear, at present this template is not useless.  It is in many cases worse than useless . When I'm in the mood to cleanup, I take my pick from a specific category at Category:Wikipedia maintenance, and tailor it to exactly what I feel like doing. That's good for me, because it keeps me interested for longer, and it's good for the project, because it's getting more work from me. For instance, if I want to learn while doing something useful, I'll find an interesting article in need of copyedit, or sourcing. If I'm feeling especially helpful (or masochistic), I'll find an article or two in need of splitting or merging. On the other hand, if it's tagged cleanup it will not be looked at, by me or by just about anyone else, until it's one of the oldest. At best that is useless. At worst, we are delaying cleanup that could have been done years earlier, had the article been tagged in a more specific category that is routinely worked on, or in some cases routinely cleared. It will take a significant effort to sensibly manage this template's deletion, but that effort would definitely be worth it in the long run. —WFC— 23:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated position Looking beyond people's big bolded comments and reading the discussion as a whole, it would seem that consensus is tending towards depreciation, on the understanding that the template will be continue to exist. I'm on board with this, albeit I still believe that using Template:Cleanup as an unconventional DAB would be of more value. —WFC— 14:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * keep just because it's misused is not a reason to stop using it altogether. It's invaluable in new page patrol. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Misused" was the main reason behind deprecating expand. If this template is not outright deleted, then I would gladly endorse a similar deprecation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this template is being misused. On the contrary, the problem is that it is being used for what it was designed to do, one which is inferior to newer methods. Cleanup, even accompanied with a talk page explanation that the article needs a copy edit, is of considerably less value than copy edit, due to the fact that those specifically wanting to do copy edits will seek those tags out. —WFC— 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Went keep last time with the proviso that the reason parameter was made mandatory. Others made similar suggestions for improving the template. As this has not been done and the deletion of expand did not break the encyclopaedia I now think deleting it is a viable option. AIR corn (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or restore cleanup section to function on its own. How are you supposed to indicate a section cleanup without this template, since people keep deleting section templates? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That still leaves the vagueness issue. If you tag a section for cleanup, you're still not clarifying the cleanup. You're just drive-by tagging because you can't be arsed to elaborate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How does that leave vagueness at issue? Cleanup has a parameter to specify what needs cleaning up. That could be made mandatory. And why do you assume that it's drive by tagging? Do you know that everyone who uses this does not leave a reason as an HTML comment, talk page comment, edit summary comment, or cleanup tag inline comment? WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, we have specific tags, that only an indepth editor knows, so the average editor, who knows none of these cannot tag articles for cleanup anymore? Some other editor can come along and replace the tag with a more specific one, and if the "why" parameter is made mandatory, it'd be even clear what the tagger was complaining about. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been explained several times on this page why that is not ideal. But to ensure that we do not decimate the hundreds of thousands of IPs that do invaluable cleanup, we should turn Template:Cleanup page into a DAB, hosting links to all cleanup templates. Problem solved. —WFC— 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment If this template is kept its boilerplate text and documentation should be be extended to say the template can also be applied to articles not needing improvement and to those so excellently written that they might still be acceptable even after unsatisfactory editing. This would help the many Twinkle users who do not have time to look at articles between placing tags and would also indicate to potential editors that the template is best ignored. Thincat (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment (I've unambiguously stated a preference for deletion above). There is probably some obscure guideline against this, but I would advocate converting Template:Cleanup into a DAB, once all transclusions have been dealt with. On top of being a useful resource for everyone, it would render the "newbies won't know how to draw attention to issues" argument null and void. —WFC— 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If some actually want to keep this template as generic bolierplate text, we could do something like the generic Db for speedy deletion. If a user tagging the article does not provide a reason, something like "but no reason has been given for why" appears in red text. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, please, not again. The cleanup tag's reason parameter should be used, but we don't delete the entire template because it's not. Just ask the Twinkle coders to require a parameter or something—that'll solve 90% of the problem. Also, cleanup is generally understood to mean "this article looks like crap, and it's pretty obvious why. The person who added the tag onto this article was too lazy to actually fix all the issues, but you can try to make it prettier if you're not also lazy!". Very useful template for general article issues. Better than tag-bombing with six different tags, or do we encourage that, now? And the "but we should be fixing things instead of tagging" argument that is bound to come up later is invalid; if it made sense, almost all article tags should be deleted on account of users supposed to be useful and fixing issues instead of blindly tagging. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While I find tag bombing and overtagging less than helpful, if misuse of cleanup templates were a valid reason for deletion, templates such as POV, Multiple issues, Plot, Trivia, etc which are abused far more often would need to go as well. (Two of many such examples I've collected: ) There are not many cleanup templates which are not misused and abused in some form or fashion these days. The work put into this TFD nomination would be better applied to an RFC over the misuse of cleanup templates in general. I very much would support a discussion over how we can improve the use of all cleanup templates, both here on Wikipedia and as part of the Wikimedia Strategic Planning discussions.  --Tothwolf (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is a key difference. Other templates are misused. This template is problematic because it is being used for the purpose for which it was designed. I.e. as a simple way of tagging an article as possibly being sub-standard, without the need to provide further feedback, and without placing it into any sort of category that will allow those willing to work on the relevant problems to find it. —WFC— 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Fetchcomms. It's ugly, but it serves a purpose. What is needed is for these to be absorbed, if they are not already, into one of the copyedit backlog drives (either Guild of Copyeditors or Wikification). Most of these just need a rewrite by someone who's good with articles. Also, this is the fourth time in less than a year that someone has gone after a major fix-needed template. Deleting the template does not make the problem go away.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This rationale says that the template must be kept, without providing any refutation to the issues raised, and effectively summising that the solution is that our army of copyeditors should be told to work on this ad infinitum. If people want to copyedit, they'll find an article marked for copyedit. A surefire way to put off copyeditors is to add thosands of articles that have nothing to do with copyediting to their backlog. —WFC— 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So let's say an article needs re-formatting, a serious copyedit, tons more refs, some re-organization, more neutrality, and attention from an expert. Given that I'm busy right now and can't fix the issues myself, should I tag the article with six applicable tags so that a copyeditor can work on one of them, a MOS expert on another, an expert on another, etc.—or should I use one tag so that someone who just wants to fix up an article in general can do their thing? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a prolific "tag-bomber" as I use tags to help me plan my own workflow (first pass: tag; second pass: fix). A generic cleanup tag helps me in this process: Fetchcomms basically described what I use it for (a general reminder to myself that there should be relatively easy gains possible on that article when I have a chance). Deleting this template would disrupt that process for me, so on a purely selfish basis I'd like it kept around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - this template is redundant to a myriad number of more specific clean-up templates. Anthem 09:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keyword: "myriad". Placing too many tags on an article is borderline disruptive. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I use this template: when I see it, I clean up the article then I removed the tag.Curb Chain (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly provide an example of when you have done so, prior to the start of this discussion? —WFC— 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In my contributions. It is hard to dig out.  But I used to go the category:articles needing cleanup and would cleanup articles that way.Curb Chain (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly provide example of when you have gone on a run of article cleanups, prior to the start of this discussion. Sorry for my persistence, but the central plank of your argument is that we should ignore the deficiencies of the template, because you are one of many editors that find this particular template to be of use for cleanup. If you can demonstrate that you have used this template in the past to go on a cleanup spree, your argument will carry considerably more weight. —WFC— 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * this is a better example
 * Curb Chain (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both done after I questioned if you had ever used it for that purpose, I note. —WFC— 14:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have used this before. At one point I took the articles of the oldest months in category:articles needing cleanup and cleaned many articles. I gave those examples because you asked me for them.  I have told you I used this template in the past, but it is hard to dig out the the diffs.Curb Chain (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not looking for such a contribution myself. The edit you cite is a good case study to be fair. Having been tagged for two years, a decent editor (you) added a footnotes header and stub, and removed cleanup. Both modest yet tangible improvements, I agree. But had the editor in June 2009 given you more specific help, you might well have been able to do more for the article. If cleanup were treated the same way as stub, a more specific tag, or if necessary multiple issues, could have been placed back in June/July 2009. —WFC— 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think one of the problem of this template is that, being so generic, an editor never knows when to remove it. This way a page either keep this tag for years, even after the issue has been solved, or the tag is removed with the original problem still present. More specialized templates instead explain what the issue of the article/section is, so that it is possible to identify if the problem has been resolved or not. -- Arcanis 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – I agree with Tothwolf. I can't see the problematic parts in having this template. Is there something problematic in removing cleanup templates in articles where you don't understand what needs to be cleaned up? Furthermore, with this template we've already gone through TFD a previous two times. Both nominations were made within one year (the latest one was this year) and had the same outcome – keep. Would someone expect "third time lucky" to work in this case? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 12:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments for deletion have grown progressively stronger (whether they are strong enough for a consensus for deletion is not for me to say, but it's undeniable that a better case has been made this time). The arguments for keeping are increasingly tending towards "too big a job, let's not bother" and "we voted last time". —WFC— 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly sympathise with TenPoundHammer. Per User:Fetchcomms, is it possible to make the tools force an entry for reason.  Is it realistic to expect that meaningless-taggers will enter a meaningful reason?  Worth a trial, I would expect.  Would it be realistic to thing that it might be useful to write a rule that taggers must provide a reason (or they loose brownie points)?  Are there many pages out there tagged with this template currently, and if so, what happens if the template is deleted?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can enforce a reason in Twinkle easily enough I'd imagine, but the only way to "enforce" one when entering the tag manually would be the Big Red Error. In general we shouldn't be using Big Red Errors for anything except sky-falling-down problems (where there is no acceptable graceful fallback), so that wouldn't be right here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as worse than useless. That it could have appropriate uses if employed correctly is not an acceptable argument in this case, because unlike say, rescue, this template is and will always be used so widely that its use cannot be policed (likewise with its eternal backlogs). It is overwhelmingly a net negative, a vague defacement that harms user experience without any substantial benefit.  Skomorokh   14:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The same could be said of most cleanup tags (copyedit, for instance, is almost synonymous with the general use case of this template). All it takes to "fix the defacement" if the tag is misused is removing it. I'm wary of removing a tool that editors evidently find useful based on such a general argument. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Two good faith edits that do nothing are a net neagtive, where the alternative is no good faith edits that do nothing. Especially so if there was some sort of reason for the first edit. For an editor using twinkle, tagging a template with multiple issues is little more of a "defacement" than tagging it with cleanup, and has the added advantage that in the 99% of cases where that editor never returns to the article again, someone else will know exactly what they saw. —WFC— 15:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cleanup signifies that the article is a piece of crap. Let's not pretend that new users respond to these tags, because most don't—tags have become so commonplace that they are perpetually ignored by our readers. Any established editor should be able to look at an article and tell what's wrong with it—otherwise, I'm not sure what they've been doing instead of writing an encyclopedia. One short summary tag that means "this article looks like crap, so someone should decrappify it" is much less intrusive than five or six tags or lists in multiple issues. Cleanup = multiple issues, but less intrusive. The added specific reasons aren't necessary—it's not hard to tell if an article needs a good copyedit becuz yu cant read it easyly atall. If the article also has formatting issues, MOS violations, is unsourced, has NPOV issues, then the article = crap = needs to be cleaned up. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, if we have 50,000 articles that are that terrible, then delete the frigging lot of them I say. But I don't believe that to be the case. If cleanup does indeed signify that, why would multiple issues be such a bad thing? Is it such a bad thing to be more descriptive about why an article is deficient? cleanup without explanation is frankly as much use as godawful. I nommed the latter for deletion myself, and rightly so, but at least that made some effort to tell the reader in no uncertain terms that an article was rubbish. With explanations on the talk page, cleanup is still less versatile than multiple issues. Either way you cut it, cleanup is not fit for purpose. —WFC— 19:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because multiple issues is intrusive, bulky, annoying to readers, etc. I once considered making a tag that said something like "This article is a mess. If you want to fix it, click "edit" at the top. If you're too lazy, join the club". But it wouldn't really lead to readers taking any action, either. It's not very different from every other cleanup tag, really—"this article has issues, fix them now or go to another page instead!" One of my friends say an article with four or five tags, once, and she asked me "why doesn't anyone fix these, it's annoying to have to scroll past a whole bunch of them". Cleanup is like a condensed version of multiple issues—it's just for generally messy articles. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's scope is too broad and it should be replaced with more specific tags like wikify, copyedit, et cetera. Guoguo12   (Talk)  16:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Keep but deprecate. See below.  Guoguo12   (Talk)  02:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely useless, because it's scope is too broad. It should every time replaced with more specific tags. 82.131.238.34 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To both you and Guoguo12, can you explain why broadness is always a disadvantage when discussion generally crappy articles (i.e., those with multiple issues), and why tag-bombing would be an acceptable alternative? To clarify, how is deletion the only or the best overall solution here? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's my opinion: when I look at an article for the first time, I want to know exactly what can and should be fixed—I'm talking about a to-do list for the article. "Cleanup" is simply too vague to describe what needs to be fixed. Furthermore, there are very effective WikiProjects for doing specific "cleanup" tasks: copyedit, wikify, et cetera. Forcing users to be just a bit more specific in their tagging will increase efficiency by allowing users who specialize in a certain task, be it copyediting or wikifying, to find all articles that need it, rather than have to dig through a miscellaneous backlog marked "cleanup". Guoguo12   (Talk)  01:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, wait, you're right, now that I come to think of it—deletion isn't really the best option. I like MuZemike's idea below of making the cleanup tag like stub—articles tagged with the template should always be replaced with more specific tags. Apologies, Fetchcomms. Guoguo12   (Talk)  02:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to apologize—but my question now is, if an article needs both copyediting and wikification, a cleanup tag would tell editors to essentially fix both those issues, rather than have each individual WikiProject work on only one half of the issues. Also, I think the deprecation idea does make sense—still let people use the template, but encourage replacing it with more specific ones where applicable. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that WikiProjects aimed at one specific issue won't be able to find the article if it is tagged with only cleanup, like in in this article, which needs to be copyedited yet does not show up in the copyediting backlog because the tagger, respectable as he/she is, did not tag the page with a more specific template than cleanup. I might mention that if the deprecation plan is adopted, it will not be reasonable to sort each of the 40,000 articles into more specific tagging categories, so what will happen to them? Don't worry, I'll copyedit the example article I used. Guoguo12   (Talk)  16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's true, but with many articles (such as your example), it needs much more than just copyediting. It needs refs, sections, organization, an NPOV check, some context, categories, a notability check, more backlinks, and a copyedit. cleanup denotes all of these things—that the article is in need of much more than just a copyedit. Also, I think it's perfectly reasonable to sort 40,000 articles into specific categories; given that there's no deadline, I don't see what the problem is if deprecation is ultimately selected. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons that Fetchcomms explained very well. But I'm intrigued by WFC's suggestion of making it, instead, a DAB, and I could potentially support that approach instead. And I have a suggestion for those editors who feel so terribly bothered when they see this template in use: remove it from the page (and fix up the page if you feel like it). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading later comments, I would also have no objection to deprecating it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fetchcomms and ChrisCunningham. But: is there any way that Twinkle could add options to an existing cleanup template to convert it to something more specific, or to add a reason later? I mean, Twinkle would add a little tab to the template when it sees it, so an editor can click that and do something easily via Twinkle. Rd232 talk 21:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Deprecate – I agree with TPH. Now that we have such a diverse and specified set of cleanup tags, there is no longer much utility to the cleanup tag, and is likely mostly used for drive-by tagging purposes. These tags should be replaced with more specific cleanup tags, much in the same way the Stub template should always be replaced (i.e. via stub-sorting) with more specific stub tags. –MuZemike 21:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' stub is not deprecated. People just go around replacing it with better stubtypes. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments being used on the keep side of this discussion suggest that to replace cleanup with multiple issues would be a bad thing. Until there is consensus that doing it isn't disruptive, it won't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCforLife (talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added code to the sandbox version of this template which will generate an error message when the reason parameter isn't given for newly edited articles, while leaving old transclusions alone. Both old and new page transclusions which lack a reason parameter will be categorized in a maintenance category. See this test case for an example of how the new code works. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some kinds of cleanup require a general template, such as a gallery or a whole bunch of things at once (wording + tone + NPOV + gallery + conversions, for example). Also, Twinkle now automatically requests that you put a reason (although you can choose not to), so it is much easier for drive-by taggers to give a reason. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - however, the process of deletion needs to be handled correctly. These templates should be replaced with something more specific, if possible, before the template is actually removed. There needs to be at least some effort made to identify the actual problem in the article, if for no other reason then to appease the "keep" voters here (in reality, most of these articles do suffer from some problem, although the nomination rational is still completely correct here). — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Something occurs to me about that. Even without deleting it, there is nothing stopping editors from going around and replacing it with tags that are more to-the-point. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the kernel of the plan of action in my mind, right there. I just don't want to start running around doing anything like that while there's a active TFD. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 22:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Fetchcomms has already said it all. If we remove this, the tag will have to be replaced with armies of, , , .... Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To anyone who !voted keep — would keeping the template but deprecating it be acceptable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think deprecating it (making it like the plain stub template) is a sensible way to go about doing this. "Issue-sorting", maybe, like "stub-sorting". That way, people could still use the template to mark out bad articles, but it could be placed in a category called "articles requiring unspecified cleanup" or something, and it can be sorted through regularly, like stubs. Actually, as noted above, we could do this now. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking it's in the same position as stub already. But if consensus is to depreciate, requiring a reason in Twinkle would be desirable. That way, the template would only be used where cleanup with a brief reason is genuinely the most effective way of describing an article's shortcomings. —WFC— 23:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do these changes in the sandbox version that I noted above help? --Tothwolf (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Going forward I'm in favour of that. If there is consensus for it, we would need to work on the backlog first. —WFC— 16:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it would work better, I could add code to do dated maintenance categories instead of a single category when the template is used without the reason parameter. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete; Yeah, it's broad, and I agree with Fetchcomms in that it's good for identifying a generally crappy article without using a half dozen specific tags. Trouble is, it's used for so much more than that that in the majority of cases it's useless because it only identifies an article that needs some links or a copyedit or what have you and is redundent to the specific tags for those problems.  If it gets deleted, it's going to hurt a little, because there will (or should) be some articles with a huge mass of tags at the top.  But it'll (should?) help a lot more, because it'll allow a more accurate categorization of articles that need help, and like WFC said, that'll make it more likely that articles will recieve that help sooner. C628 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you telling me the "more specific" tags do not have enough articles that editors are "waiting" for articles to be tagged with "more specific tags" so they can "fix"?Curb Chain (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep it's a start. Some articles need cleanup more than others, and it seems very appropriate to have a way of identifying them. I rarely use it, as I usually find something more specific, but I certainly notice it & it signals me to try to do some work on the article.  We want to make things easy for new editors to comment appropriately on articles.    DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be fair to say that you think the template should continue to exist, but that you wouldn't be averse to a form of depreciation? —WFC— 14:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to deprecate this template. DGG says that it makes it useful for him to signal to him that a specific article needs cleaning, so he does do this.  If this tag makes an article "cleaned", by giving an intrinsic reason for editors to edit an article, that is threshold enough to use/keep this template.Curb Chain (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He also says that he rarely uses it, which is in line with the idea behind deprecation. Deprecating the tempalte tells users to "avoid new uses of this template" and, in this case, that "other, more specific templates, are probably preferable". Fetchcomms has a point that using a raft of other templates is borderline disruptive, but I don't see that as being a completely convincing argument. People can pick one or two of the most obvious, but more specific, problems and tag articles with those templates. The "I use this all the time, please don't change it" argument is completely unconvincing here, since it's easy enough to just use a different template (and you should be as specific as possible when you're trying to direct other people on what you think they should be doing). Finally, based on the continued existence of this template sitting around on articles for long periods of time (examples were given above), it's clear that the argument that the template is effective in achieving it's stated goals is questionable, at best. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 18:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fetchcomms and Curb Chain. Ridiculous. This template is useful to clean up the articles in Category:Articles needing cleanup. If I see such an ugly template while new-page patrolling (though not as ugly as the newly implemented notice in the Infobox Album template) I go and edit the article till it is clean.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fetchcomms is coming around to the idea of depreciating, which would appear to be the prevailing consensus. Curb Chain has made up an argument on the fly, and failed to convincingly back it up when challenged. —WFC— 14:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC) strikes + underlined word added —WFC— 15:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse me of failing to back up my argument when I was challenged: You failed to look in my contributions to verify if I actually cleaned articles using this template the way it a bot dates them using the months category.Curb Chain (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by the statement. We'll have to agree to disagree, and let others decide whether or not it's a fair comment. Best, —WFC— 18:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can tell you honestly that the older months of category:articles needing cleanup have been removed. And this may be because I removed cleaned articles in those "older" months.  I didn't clean ALL of those articles in those "older" months, but I definitely did do some articles.Curb Chain (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per our discussion above, I have altered my comment accordingly. The stricken part admittedly went too far. —WFC— 15:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm all for keeping Wikipedia friendly to new users and I think that this general template achieves this goal. As with every other aspect of this site, any other editor is more than welcome to change the template on the page to a more appropriate template. Unless there is a major subset of persistent edit wars between editors who replace the template with more specific alternatives, I'd rather articles get tagged with this template than not at all. I also echo the concern for losing the ability to mark a section as needing cleanup since many of the specific cleanup templates do not seem to provide a section parameter (or documentation if they do). I might also be able to support a thoughtful merge to multiple issues —Ost (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Deprecate; The most specific the tag, the better. Mattlore (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Nuke it just like we did with "expand". We don't need useless templates which serve only to say "this article could be better but I'm not sure how". Protonk (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Deprecate. I looked at a sampling of articles that currently use it, and it looks to me like in essentially all cases, a more specific template would be more appropriate. Deleting right away would be a bad idea though, IMHO, so deprecate like was done with expand. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Deprecate – This template, inherently, doesn't provide much information for an article editor other than the fact that it needs "cleanup," a vague and unhelpful term. Deleting outright may cause too many issues, however, so deprecate and (hopefully) replace all transclusions with a more specific cleanup template. — mc10 ( t / c ) 22:20, 17 June 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:Ukraine Labelled Map

 * 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 no consensus to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)



Tagged for cleanup for 4 years and ain't nothing happening. Adds nothing; let it go. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep At first glance I don't see any obvious understanding issues, although it does leave a lot to be desired aesthetically. On Administrative divisions of Ukraine it is the closest thing there is to a readable map – unless you're willing to leave the page to read the other one – and the article would definitely be worse off without this. Being tagged for cleanup for four years simply means that someone wasn't happy four years ago, but wasn't sufficiently upset to bother explaining the problem. —WFC— 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which ties in nicely to my frustration over drive-by tagging of the cleanup template, above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree it may be a little unsightly, but it's quite useful for the main administrative divisions page since it links everything together.. Something along the lines of USA imagemap with state names would be more fit and cleaner, but I personally don't know how to format something of that sort.. --ddima/talk 23:42, 11 June 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:AtL Labelled Map

 * 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 close, based on false premise in nom statement. JPG-GR (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)



Unused template, hasn't been touched in 4 years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC) "hasn't been touched in 4 years" - what? This was last updated in late 2010 to reflect the league's planned expansion. It's not currently in use but there's nothing to say that it couldn't be improved and then used in the article. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  17:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * delete, the article, Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, seems to be fine without it. Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 13 June 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:2000 Race US Census map

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)



Unused template, hasn't been touched in 4 years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:17, 10 June 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:Camp Lazlo

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)



Navigates four articles. WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk)  09:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, also per WP:NENAN. This navbox isn't necessary. Guoguo12   (Talk)  02:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NBFILL, because it's just as valid a reason as WP:NENAN is. (*rolls eyes*) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 05:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even NBFILL concedes that there are some navboxes that aren't worth creating. Indeed, the final part of that section specifically addresses navboxes where there few enough articles to count on one hand, and where that is unlikely to change. —WFC— 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm sure... it's just, seeing two "delete" votes citing WP:NENAN as a reason in and of itself to delete something struck me as... well, an undesirable situation. Also, just because the "A navbox on every page" essay offers a rule of thumb, that doesn't make it a hard rule that must be followed, you know?
 * I don't really care about this template, but it's easy enough for me to see that it's possible to expand it. Two of the three items currently on the template could easily be expanded to "categories", with many links added. That would easily take care of the "there's less than a handful of links" criticism. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 17:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – I don't think that linking to an essay as policy is a good idea, but I do agree that this template doesn't serve much purpose, if it only represents four articles. — mc10 ( t / c ) 22:24, 17 June 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.