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 page.

The result of the debate was Nom Withdrawn - Good enough for me, if anyone objects we can reopen it. Crossmr 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete This template is the equivalent of an editor's markup on a rough draft. It litters many otherwise good articles on Wikipedia with ugly, unprofessional looking clutter that only serves to highlight the articles' defects to non-editors. No real encyclopedia would go to press with marks like this left in its articles. This is the type of thing that belongs on an article's talk page, not in the article itself. Template:fact should be deleted and instances of its use should be replaced with appropriate discussions on the talk pages of the articles where it is used. dryguy 17:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn I withdraw the nomination. There. Does that do it? dryguy 22:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This template is currently represented on over 18,000 pages. Netscott 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Template:Fact(edit talk links history) is featured as tip of the day. It has over 2000 backlinks. I've fixed the TFD tag's parameter s/Templatename/Fact/. -- Omniplex 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The ((Tfd-inline)) emulation was added by Netscott later, now it shows up with all affected citations, therefore I change my comment to speedy keep. -- Omniplex 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Just for clarity here, I did my best to keep the TfD message as unobtrusive as possible. Netscott 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. This monstrous graffiti should be deleted. If a factual statement is in serious doubt, it should be discussed, and if significant removed during discussion. Just popping a tag on the article simply disfigured the article for no good reason. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is a work in progress; the project as a whole is a rough draft. By hiding our "defects" we make them more difficult to correct. We don't compose articles in a dark room, then "go to press" with them, and we aren't professionals to begin with. We're amateur writers, some of us fail at the actual craft of prose and wander in search of other ways to contribute, eventually becoming administrators. You say "non-editors" as if you are referring to a certain, higher class of people expecting more from us than we do of ourselves. On the contrary, the only people I'd like to see remain "non-editors" are the ones found here, whose opinions no longer mean shit to us, if ever they did. If you think adding optional parameters for a link to a relevant talk page section would improve this template, go ahead and do so. If you think it looks unprofessional, change its appearance. If this nomination is your reaction to this template being inserted in an article you wrote (no, I haven't checked), then provide a citation in its place, so you won't have to see it anymore. — Jul. 1, '06 [18:40] <freak|talk>
  • Comment By non-editor, I mean anyone reading an article without the intent to edit it at the moment - even if the person is a regular Wikipedia editor otherwise. The fact template adds a lot of darned distracting clutter that frustrates many readers. Some articles have tens of instances of the fact template, which is not something I am regularly willing to change on the fly when I'm here reading. If I'm here editing, you bet I'll add the citations where I am able. dryguy 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The solution is not to sweep the problem under the rug. The solution is to draw a circle around using day-glow orange chalk in hopes of catching the attention of somebody who does have the time, competance, and inclination to fix the problem. Hell, let's add text-decoration:blink to it, if that will cause people to replace the tag with actual links, just to avoid being bombarded by the blinking. — Jul. 1, '06 [19:06] <freak|talk>
  • Comment Which would cause Wikipedia to become an unreadable mess of blinking garbage. If you want people to stay and fix problems, you can't afford to drive them away by making the articles unreadable, which is what Template:fact does. That is why the talk pages were created in the first place. dryguy 19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've missed the point. This template is to let other users know that a small section of the article needs to be improved, many of whom would not otherwise notice that need. — Jul. 1, '06 [19:22] <freak|talk>
  • Comment No, I get the intent of the template. I just think that as a solution, it is worse than the problem it is supposed to solve. dryguy 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd argue that an unverified article is far worse then an ugly looking one. --DragonHawk 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So you propose to make them both ugly and unverified. Great. dryguy 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If that is the end result of a lack of citations, yes. Even more, an article that violates several different Wikipedia policies may well have several tags on it, causing it to look even worse. Notice the pattern? The worse an article is, the worse it looks. I consider that a feature, not a bug. --DragonHawk 21:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it should have maintenance tags. Furthermore, this is not the appopriate process to address your problem. Rather, you should vote on the proposal, Wikipedia:Keep Wikipedia-related metadata out of articles, that deals with it generally. FWIW, that proposal is almost unanimously being voted against. --M@rēino 19:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps you also want to get rid of all the cleanup tags because it looks unprofessional. The only articles that are "going to press" are the feature articles which are not allowed to have any ((fact))'s in them. If an article become "littered" with "clutter" they should be removed an replaced with a Template:Disputed or Template:Disputed-section. Jon513 20:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I'm not addressing the general concept of maintenance tags, just Template:fact. Most tags hit the top or bottom of the page with one nice clean banner. Template:fact clutters mercilessly. dryguy 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This is a very valid tool for helping "clue in" fellow editors not comprehensively aware of a given subject of likely problems in a given article. I have used this template enough to know that it tends to work well towards getting text in articles properly cited. Netscott 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful and widely used - • The Giant Puffin • 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good template. - FrancisTyers · 20:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Double edit conflict strong keep. This maintenance template is used heavily - it is included in over 5,000 articles! Any proposal to deprecate the template should be preceded by the introduction of an alternative on the Village Pump. This template is simply too high-profile to delete out of hand. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Single edit conflict Keep. Quite important tool to remind people to always use references. --Conti|✉ 20:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Dryguy, you state repeatedly that this template does things like "frustrates many readers" and "drive them away". Those are pretty serious charges. On what do you base these statements? --DragonHawk 20:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I was unclear. Modifying the tag to blink would perhaps drive users away. :) As far as frustrating readers, refer to a good style guide such as Strunk and White regarding parenthetical interruption of a statement. This is more of a problem for Template:fact when it is used repeatedly in the same article. It is like the visual equivalent of a jackhammer in the background.dryguy 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Why shouldn't article defects be pointed out to readers? IMHO it serves to 1) take the info with a grain of salt 2) get a more experienced editor to supply a backup. It's fact checking which is a great idea in any collaborative effort. Ifnord 20:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They should be. On the talk page. dryguy 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template serves a vital function on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We encourage anyone to edit, because we believe that lowers the barrier to entry for contributions, and thus can enable the best content possible. However, it also means that we have to be very careful about what gets contributed. The "three big content policies" (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR) all depend on citations. Without citations, Wikipedia is little more than a message board. I would thus argue that lack of citations is one of the biggest editorial problems Wikipedia faces, and that this tag is thus one of the most vital tags on Wikipedia. We should make it hugely obvious that a citation is needed. If that makes the article look unpleasant, good. An article that fails to cite sources should look bad, because it IS bad. --DragonHawk 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep with edit conflict - let the reader know that s/he should not blindly trust some facts. Let the editors know that something needs fixing. Renata 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DragonHawk. --Shuki 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - This is the best template on Wikipedia. I probably reference it about 20 times per day. --Liface 21:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we are always a work in progress. Secretlondon 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ~ PseudoSudo 21:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Very useful! - David Björklund (talk)
• Speedy keep. --Oden 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super strong keep. Extremely useful template, especially during reviews of existing articles... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I agree that information that is not sourced or potentially inaccurate should be removed, this is a useful tag that helps identify possibly incorrect and unsourced information. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and while it may appear unprofessional to use this tag, it is vital to editors trying to improve verifiability. It's also helpful to readers, sending a message to consider the information "cum grano salis." If you don't like seeing this tag, consider determinig whether the information is factual, and if it is, cite it. --Randy Johnston (‽) 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Better to disclaim un-cited information than to simply report them and argue them elsewhere. Wikipedia is meant to be open, and this template keeps the editing process more open. —siroχo 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It ruins Wikipedia crediblity. —Falconleaf 21:13, 1 July 2006
  • Comment: Falconleaf, you say it ruins Wikipedia credibility. How so? An article without citations violates major policies, regardless of this tag. I'd say failure to justify where we get our information is a bar bigger credibility problem then this markup is. --DragonHawk 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but change what the template displays from [citation needed] to [?] (or something like that). As it stands, the template clutters up the page too much. Just a question mark would let editors understand what's going on without interfering in readers' objective of simply reading the article. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; very important and helps with working article to FA/GA status. Suggest (if possible) speedy keeping; if you think it looks messy normally, this IFD tag is far worse for article clutter (see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Life as Queen. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. None of our articles will ever be complete but this tag is really useful to force others to add sources. The fact that it is ugly is small consideration. (Your deletion nomination makes it even more ugly.) Skinnyweed 21:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though it is ugly, it does serve is an impetus to find sources. In our recent FA push for Chrono Trigger, a few hard to find references were brought to light by visitors passing by who noticed the tags and assisted us on the talk page. They're great direction signs on the road to improvement. --Zeality 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep why was there a TfD in the first place? (1 edit conflict!) -- Миборовский 21:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What are we voting for to keep the template (Keep) or to keep the hideous message that appears when it now used quote "this may be deleted have your say" - get rid of this please.HappyVR 21:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe the "this may be deleted have your say" text is an attempt to highlight the TfD status of this template. Since this template is used in-line with article text, the normal TfD textbox approach cannot be used. Witness the link to this discussion in the "have your say" text. Regardless, this vote is absolutely about the template itself; this is a TfD log page. --DragonHawk 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This tag is very important in verifying facts in an article. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User:Dryguy, I've noticed a common theme in your comments. Is your only objection to this tag that it upsets your sense of asthetics? Yes, the text rendered by this tag is not part of the article text. Neither are regular footnotes (superscript numerals). We aren't going to get rid of footnotes if they upset your personal sense of asthetics; I feel the same reasoning should apply here. Wikipedia is a verifiable encyclopedia first; looking nice comes afterwards. (This is not to say we shouldn't strive for a good appearance, too, but the one overrides the other.) --DragonHawk 21:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That, and it is redundant with the function of the talk page. Template:fact also tends to be over applied. Citing sources is good and necessary, but I think the ease of insertion of the template leads to overuse and cluttering of otherwise good articles. Often, a paragraph expressing many ideas needs only one reference, but the uninformed are likely to come along and litter every sentence with ((fact)) tags. A better approach is to bring it up on the talk page - that way, cooler, wiser heads prevail. Verifiability is a must, but that doesn’t mean that citations need to be applied with religious fervor to every last little detail. dryguy 21:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Castlecraver 21:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Moncrief 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this tag serves to highlight missing sources that can back up statements in articles. As Wikipedia has recieved some critisism as students cite Wikipedia, without checking other sources this could help to make students (and other users) aware that a statement is unsourced, and possibly not correct. Bjelleklang - talk 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very useful in terms of marking what exactly is unverified, helps editors determine problems with an article and notify readers that a certain statement may be doubtful. The high number of articles using the template speaks for itself of its usefulness. Its functionality and convenience can in now way be substituted simply by talk page discussion. Todor→Bozhinov 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important template. I've seen many instances where this tag has worked really well. They just should be removed much sooner from the article. I think if after a week or so there still is no source, the tag should be removed and the unsourced statement should be moved to the talk page. Garion96 ^(talk) 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Short of any other crossreferencing system, this is about as good as it gets. --moof 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: When articles are printed that contain it, this tag does not form part of the document. It has a specific "no print" marker to prevent that. Netscott 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Nominator using TfD to make a point. Either that or very innocent about how to obtain consensus on a template used in over 18k articles. -- Stbalbach 21:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I really believe Wikipedia would be the better for its deletion. A lot of work, yes, but there are a lot of editors available to help. Please assume good faith. dryguy 21:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sometimes people feel irritated by a statement they read in an article. If there is no reference which supports that statement, they can either search for a reference themselves, add that ((fact)) template, post a message on the talk page (which is more work) or outright delete that statement. If a statement doesn't look obviously wrong, I'd rather like a lazy editor to add a ((fact)) template, than to delete the statement. IMHO if we delete the ((fact)) template, many editors will rather delete statements, than post a message on the talk page. Raphael1 21:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reminds editors of always referencing their sources, and reminds users that not everything in Wikipedia should be taken as a fact. At most, it could possibly be shortened, but still kept. --Kamek 21:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Highlighting an article's defect to a non-editor can only be a good thing. It's my belief that the addition of ((fact)) has caused editors to substantially improve the verifiability of Wikipedia. Also, putting all that extra text to reference the TfD discussion everywhere the template is included is nuts. --Grouse 21:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as per many others, extremely useful. We also need to remove that tag, becuase it makes articles look messy, and if you subst the template, then you have to go back and remove that after this is closed. The concensus already seems very clear.--Crossmr 21:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and links like this invite them to do it. This is far better for individual small facts than section source templates and full-article templates. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for practicality. It would be great if we had no need to keep "metadata" out of our "ready for publishing" articles. We're not there. This template often has precisely its desired effect, and is too useful to get rid of. Jkelly 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep = Whenever I see this tag, as a casual user, it warns me "Hey, this information may not be citable." Whenever I see this tag, as a Wikipedia user, it tells me "This information needs a citation of some sort; wonder if I can help?" Removing it would be harmful both to those wishing to take Wikipedia seriously and those wishing to make Wikipedia better. Sethimothy 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Very useful to flag comments to other users as not entirely definitive but not so dubious that it should be removed. Mark83 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As Above, prevents protracted Wiki-Deleetion Wars. -- Majin Gojira 21:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Extremely useful QA technique.--Fred 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and immediately revert the template to it's pre Tfd form. Modifying the template to include a link to this page is uglifying every article that uses it. BigE1977 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as above. I personally belive that this template goes a long way to preventing edit and revert wars by allowing contributers to see what needs cited. Why on earth would you want to axe it? TomStar81 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As others have mentioned, this basically amounts to a request for a source for a statement that may be dubious, but isn't so dubious to deserve that tag or to warrant a factuality dispute. It shows that one should be skeptical of a statement until it's backed with a source, and this certainly can't be a bad thing. It can even remind or pressure people to add citations to their work -- I used this tag on Scleroderma and the next edit was someone coming in and adding references for those requests. This tag is Good(tm) and should stay. --FreelanceWizard 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep definitely useful, and a signal (where necessary) that someone shouldn't believe everything they read. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as per sane reasons above. Also: for a second there, I thought the statement I was reading was going to be deleted!! -Aknorals 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:TFD says that "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place." Since this template is part of WP:CITE a style guide entry, and WP:RULES says that a style guide entry is just a type of guideline, proposing the deletion here is out-of-process and the discussion should be closed. --Grouse 22:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If you know how to close it you can do so. You don't have to be an admin to close this, concensus is clear, and if it violates policy, please close it. I'm removing the "This may be deleted" tag from the template, as its an eyesore on the thousands of articles it appears on. See this Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-Administrators_closing_discussions--Crossmr 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It says not to close it if you were involved in the discussion, so it needs to be someone else. dryguy 22:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was unaware of that (understandably, I hope). If Grouse is correct, then by all means admins, close the discussion. Outcome is already clear anyway. dryguy 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the TfD message... it's clear where this is going.Netscott 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC) On second thought, this TfD is not closed... I've reverted to User:Omniplex's version. Netscott 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nom was withdrawn on improper process, why would you say its not closed? --Crossmr 22:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nom needs to state as much in the heading of the TfD. Netscott 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ahh okay. Dryguy if you want to go ahead and strike out your statement and put that in, this can be closed.--Crossmr 22:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- Very useful tool, often prompting a more comprehensive, truthful and NPOV statement; which can only be a good thing for Wikipedia. Jhamez84 22:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- VERY USEFUL!! the alternative is to delete things, and start an edit war. This template makes people want to cite things instead of start edit wars. very useful. don't get rid of it. 216.15.119.166 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. SushiGeek 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to ^[?] which links to bottom of page like footnotes and there explains that a citation is needed.
• Keep an important tool in collaboratively building verifiable articles. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This tag is in contravention of one of our most basic polices, WP:V. If something cannot be cited, it should probably be moved to talk or deleted. See also this post by Jimbo on the mailing list. Kotepho 22:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Not just useful as an editors tool; it also serves to inform astute readers that what they are reading contains potentially inaccurate information. And the current "this may be deleted" text is an annoyance that is only useful to editors and appears on each of the hundreds of articles that currently use the template, so should be reverted to the old text ASAP. JulesH 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment that wasn't the correct edit summary for the last one.. I was looking at the templates for closing it as dryguy withdrew it, but netscott ended up in an edit conflict with me, and I forgot to clear the field. --Crossmr 22:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Official Sonic the Hedgehog
This template for the Sonic Features is unnecessary as there already is Template:SonicFeatures. Also, there is no "Template:" tag before this template. This should be either re-directed to Template:SonicFeatures or deleted outright. real_decimic 03:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It seems an useless misuse of the article namespace. Afonso Silva 13:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to other Sonic template - • The Giant Puffin • 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused and inappropriately located. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wrong namespace and no use. Todor→Bozhinov 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not only is it in the wrong place, but it isn't as good as the real one.
• Delete: wrong namespace. --Aknorals 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Douglasr007 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No redirect, that would be cross namespace and thus not good.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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