Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 16



Template:DragonKeeperChronicles

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DragonKeeperChronicles

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Contrary to the statement there is one blue left but that is the author which would standalone just fine without the template. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * and if you view it in Donita K. Paul you will see two blue links (one to edit the template, and one to view the template). Frietjes (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2013 (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:Expand 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per this discussion and as it seems to be exactly the same as expand which was previously deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Expand article

Every article can be expanded, there is no reason to use this template on some of those. If this isn't deleted, can we at least remove further? The fact that this template points to suggested sources that should have been listed by the person placing it is its only redeeming quality. Ryan Vesey 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Template:Expand was already deleted per this discussion. This template has indeed the benefit of the pointing to suggested sources. But by now it is plastered excessively over so many articles, like template:expand was. Without even bothering to list sources. I can simple copy my comment from the previous tfd. "One of the most pointless and overused templates. Of course an article can be expanded, this is Wikipedia." Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep require a rationale/reason parameter be used. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: there are a lot of articles that can use this template. For example This one which i'm on the fence about AfDing. If there's no template to label that it needs to be expanded then i'd probably just end up AfDing it again and getting my rear kicked again for AfDing a notable topic. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If an article needs a template to survive deletion, the article likely should be deleted anyway. I don't think that article should be deleted btw. Plus that article already has a stub tag, meaning this template shouldn't be on the article anyway. Garion96 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Every article can be expanded. The problem is that some articles are way too short, so that's what why we need this template. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Almost all articles should be expanded, and this template implies that only articles tagged with it are too short. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Expand was deleted because it does not provide editorial guidance. Expand section does: it is used to highlight areas of articles which are not covered in sufficient detail relative to the article as a whole. As such it is highly targeted and of use to editors and readers alike. Improvements in wording would be welcome, although probably unwieldy given that the pitchfork-armed mob have reduced this to an eighth of the size of regular work tags. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't expand section. Ryan Vesey 17:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * D'ooooh. Upon further inspection, I nominated this myself last year (when it was expand further). Yes, this is pointless, and contrary to the consensus which saw expand deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - if the article is very short, use a stub template. If not, use expand section. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment this should be used to mark an article that needs particular expansion in a given area, and were it to have a mandatory rationale/reason parameter, then it could actually show what needs expansion. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some articles do need expansion, but they are not necessarily stubs. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support keeping the template iff the rationale parameter is mandatory. I would still argue that this template should be used sparingly. Most Wikipedia articles can be expanded, stubs or not. But those that are not stubs should be using the expand section template in the section that needs to be expanded, where possible. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: is a resourceful tool which can be usefully applied to articles. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 05:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * delete per the deletion of expand. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * keep It is important when an article needs expansion compared to similar articles or in light of its importance to the encyclopedia and "stub" or "incomplete list" or other similar "we need more information in this article" templates do not apply. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Followup:  endorse mandatory rationale parameter going forward, but not removing the template from existing uses where no rationale is provided.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like Expand was, this is just a pointless non-message that drive-by editors can tag and forget, offering no actual improvement to the project.  Even the additional parameters are pointless.  "Here's some sources"?  Why doesn't the tagger follow their own damned advice and expand the article if they already have sources? Resolute 00:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if there are specific expansion needs that should be addressed, how would you handle that? (having a rationale/reason parameter attached to this compulsarily would allow such a targeted need to be indicated) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To do Ryan Vesey 00:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what talk pages are for Resolute 14:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Many these tempaltes are supposed to be accompanied by talk page discussion areas. Having the template just indicates that something appears on the talk page that indicates a corrective action is needed, like many other orange border templates. That doesn't obviate the use of a rationale/reason parameter (since having such a mandatory parameter would stop drive by tagging with this tag) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, the template is completely necessary, I have used it hundreds of times, and I know of Manu other editors who have as well. I usenit on a dail bassis, and the template is good the way it is. How ever, it could do with expansion. Coolboygcp (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as vague, overly complex, and essentially meaningless. Use missing information instead. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That'd only handle cases where it's missing, not where it is still needs expansion. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as stub primarily helps convey the same point with different language (at least in the case of the article Convenience). Lucas &#34;Shank&#34; Nicodemus (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding stub instead of expand article: I use this on non-stubs where the importance of the subject dictates expansion is required and multiple uses of expand-section is inadequate or would amount to template over-use.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Used irregularly and could probably apply to any article other than GA/FA ones. If an article is too short then tag it as a stub, I don't think this template encourages anyone to expand an article. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment From the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub&oldid=549074380 current version] of WP:STUB: "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text...." Many articles are "too short" but are far larger than a stub. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most articles are too short and larger than a stub, which to me renders this template pointless. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – This is a functional template to add to the Further reading sections of articles. When Further reading sources exist that can be used to expand an article, it's a nice template to use to remind editors about this possibility. For an example, see History of breakfast. Deleting this template certainly won't encourage people to actually improve the encyclopedia; conversely, the opposite may actually transpire, in which editors then may not bother to check out the Further reading entries in articles, like they're just insignificant lists in articles to be ignored or skimmed over. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Does more footnotes not do the same? --BDD (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, because the More footnotes template simply suggests adding more inline citations to articles, rather than expanding them. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep because of potential usefulness but more strongly enforce proper usage rather than allow use as a mirror of . Rephrase "Some suggested sources follow" to "The Further reading section contains sources that can be used" then get a bot to delete the template on pages where it isn't in a References, Bibliography, Further reading or External links section.  Reatlas  (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Isn't this exactly why we deprecated expand? All articles that aren't FA are inherently needing expansion. This template is vague and meaningless, and any argument of "usefulness" has failed to provide an example. Per User:Resolute, if expansion is needed, then that's what talk pages are for. This template is every bit as prone to drive-by tagging as expand was, and it's pretty much the same damn wording. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for further reading sections only Maintenance billboards at the top of articles jar the reader and, I suspect, do very little to promote useful editing, judging by the fact that many remain there for years and years. I'm fairly skeptical of the merits of most, but this one takes the cake: you can't get any less helpful than telling other editors: "Hey, this article should be longer!" However, if the template's at the top of well-curated further reading section, as Northamerica1000 mentions, it provides a helpful roadmap to editors: read these sources, and you'll find facts you can add to the article. In this case, it's actually useful; if not for that single situation, I'd be calling for it to be shoved up against a wall like all the other delete voters. I suggest we keep it and allow editors to summarily remove it unless it's at the top of a list of useful sources. —Neil 05:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't recall ever using the template but am not stating it cannot have value. Coolboygcp stated using it "hundreds of times", even daily and asserts that others do too. I did not look, so not pointing a finger, just making a general point; One thing I dislike is pilot tag editors that bomb drop tags. I delete any vague tags I run across-- with talk page reasoning, if there is not obvious valid evidence for such a tag, and certainly lacking talk page comments. Vague tags are useless tags, and per some comments above, all articles can be expanded. There is a talk page for a reason and these are supposedly not for general chat but article improvements. I do not support using any tag that can be conveniently used for "fly-by-tagging". I find many that are dropped with no talk page reasoning and it is not my job to try to guess the mind of the tagging editor. Let's improve articles not dive bomb them with vague tags. Considering the above;
 * Would support keep with a rationale/reason parameter, and I can't imagine why that would not be reasonable. An editor that sees a problem necessitating a tag, can certainly spend a few seconds communicating the rationale right? Otr500 (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointless. If expansion is needed then that is in most cases obvious, at least to editors who have the knowledge to act on this need.  Sandstein   21:20, 27 April 2013 (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:Menace II Society characters

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Menace II Society characters

Template not used in any useful fashion. None of the characters listed have viable biographies. The articles that have been created are unreferenced OR and have been redirected back to the main film article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Two of the three blue links are just redirects to the 'Cast' section of the article while the final blue link redirects to the article's top. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This seems entirely sensible. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2013 (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:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual

 * 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 mark as historical Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual

I'm copying 's comments directly here because I agree with them completely."I believe this template should be marked historical and deprecated. All contributors dually license their text contributions in accordance with the WP:TOU. That dual license is retroactive in accordance with the licensing transition of 2009. Accordingly this template is now both inaccurate ("I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated" doesn't apply) and just wrong ("Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same"). It has a high potential to mislead or at least confuse those who see it on user pages"

- User:Moonriddengirl Ryan Vesey 01:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If we can't Delete it then yes, let's mark it historical and deprecated. It doesn't add anything, and as Moonriddengirl says, it's at best unhelpfully redundant, at worst confusing nonsense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2013 (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.