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 Merge with ((Airlines of Ecuador)) and then delete. Magioladitis (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Ecuador airlines destinations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A more suitable template, ((Airlines of Ecuador)), already exists. We don't need tons of templates of this kind, as per WP:NENAN. Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. BTW, it's unused.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is used on Avianca Ecuador LAN Ecuador and TAME. I don't see an overly necessary reason to delete it. Perhaps it could be merged with Airlines of Ecuador. Ryan Vesey 20:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You're right, it is. However, don't you think it should be used at destination articles rather than at airline ones if kept?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If this is kept rather than merged, it should probably be on both. Ryan Vesey 20:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with ((Airlines of Ecuador)) – I don't see much of a need to have a navbox just for lists of airline destinations. It would make more sense to combine it with the aforementioned navbox, and it might be helpful to link to destination list articles. —Compdude¹²³ 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:NENAN...William 22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge with ((Airlines of Ecuador)). Ryan Vesey 13:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 25#Islamophobia categories has shown all too clearly how problematic the use of this term is on Wikipedia. I believe the problem applies even to this template and that there have been several episodes where this sidebar has been attempted used to brandish articles, more in the function of a warning sign, than for its would-be utility. I think, as the related categories are being discussed, now is the right time to revisit this template. __meco (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Generally accepted term, template useful for navigating around related articles in the same way that we use other bias templates. Problems with inclusion of individual articles should be discussed on the template talk page or on those articles' talk pages. As the linked category discussion indicates, objections to the term "Islamophobia" are pretty much entirely "it is right to hate Islam so we shouldn't categorize it with other biases," ie. based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and inadmissible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Helpful template for a term that has a main article, categories, and much more. The outcome of the discussion on the categories (also started by meco) appears to be a consensus to keep the categories, counting policy-based arguments as pointed out by Roscelese (in any case, even if we count the "it is right to hate Islam" "arguments", it's not a consensus to delete the categories), hence it seems very clear that the categories are going to be kept too. The term is the scholarly, established term, and corresponds to Template:Antisemitism. Are we going to delete Template:Antisemitism too? JonFlaune (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment (FYI): A Norwegian newspaper recently had an article[1] that said that in Wikimedia Norway's opinion, people sharing Anders Behring Breivik's views were pushing extreme Islamophobic views in the English Wikipedia. The article idenfified one of the users taking part in the earlier attempt to delete this template as an example of this. The President of Wikimedia Norway asked people to counter these attempts. JonFlaune (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Shouldn't we look into rational arguments instead of asking to counter a poll just because of a stigma like that? Maybe Breivik would have voted to keep all non-prominent World of Warcraft articles and we should go vote against them. I've followed the Baltic nationalist vs. Russian pro-Soviet factors combating for POV issues in Wikipedia since 2006, and I must say you need both sides to achieve NPOV in articles through compromise, even if those sides have some extreme views. --Pudeo' 14:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While it is not an argument for keeping it in itself it is necessary that we keep a cool head and not let the Breivik supporters trick us into deleting valid content. // Liftarn (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per all previous attempts to delete this. // Liftarn (talk)
• Delete It's not a very useful template because: 1) many of the links do not link back, this is against the very idea of templates 2) the template has a very low prominence level that a single murder ie (Murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi) is featured in the template, which seems rather trivial considering all the events listed at Islamophobic incidents. It's the same with how the Westboro Baptist Church is featured in the template, don't they oppose half of the issues in the whole world? So in this sense, the template is pretty weakly made. 3) As the Islamophobia term is not universally accepted as flawless term, and even if it was, it has become sort of a libel in that people fight over whether it should be included in an article. For example, we had that in Minaret controversy in Switzerland, as Switzerland passed a Mosque ban in a referedum. Now, the Islamophobia template was added – a rather controversial move, isn't it – as if most Swiss then would be Islamophobes. 4) The template just doesn't add that much value to articles nor has too useful content. But then again, I am against theme templates in general. But I do give some credit to this template for having the issues in one 'book', even if it doesn't make a good template, thus I'mm not completely against it. --Pudeo' 14:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 1) make them do that then. That is not an argument for deletion, but for improvement. 2) ditto 3) While some far right extremists don't like it and and one say it's just old racism and a new term isn't needed, it's the established term for racism/hate of Muslims. // Liftarn (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Islamophobia exhibits an "irrational fear" according to our article. Usage of this term in a template or category can be problematic as the experts we cite argue over the exact application and meaning of the term. This can distract us from the more important job of writing the article where the subtleties of the subject can be explored. In any case "I like it" isn't any better than "I don't like it." When experts find this term controversial, we should hold off using it for a category or template. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apart from far right extremists the term is not controversial even if there are some differences in how it's defined. It is far better to use the established term for something than to make up a new word for it. Also you should keep in mind that templates is away to help users navigate a subject and this template does a good job of that. // Liftarn (talk)
    • Once again you slander critics. As can be seen from the article here, the critics are diverse and include those who want to salvage the term from misuse, misunderstanding, and political abuse. Even experts in the area are finding the term problematic. The term is controversial and in a state of flux. This is documented in the article. One of the abuses is to stereotype the opposition as extremist and dismiss their arguments. The article itself is rich and varied. Not only does it explore the possibilities, realities, and connected currents but it itself serves as a template and center for an exploration of the subject. Let the article be the center of exploration of the subject. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Islamophobia need not be irrational, as the article right states. The problems you list seem to be ones of quality, not ones that undermine the structure of the template. SFB 16:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • A phobia is irrational per definition. Ankimai (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is libellous indeed. I'd appreciate if the closing admin would comment on Liftarn's behaviour, too. Ankimai (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - or rename to 'Islamorealism'. The term 'Islamophobia' has been created to discourage honest discussion about Islam and Islamism, and is mainly used as a smear against critics. As Jason notes, a 'phobia' denotes an irrational fear, and is not applicable to one side in a generally relevant discussion. Being used in a partisan way (see for instance "OIC will launch channel to counter Islamophobia") to smear its opponents, the term does not have the well-defined and verifyable meaning that makes it usable as a template on Wikipedia. HenrikRClausen (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Obviously important topic especially in the aftermath of the Sept 11th attacks and contemporary politics in the US and Europe . // — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.154.185 (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Islamophobia is a growing issue, particularly in the political context of the U.S. and Europe. It is just as well-defined as Template:Antisemitism is and renaming to "Islamorealism" would obviously be an absurd endorsement of bigotry by an encyclopedia which is dedicated to having a neutral point of view. Thehotelambush (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per above comments, and improve. The term is well-defined, useful and notable. It is connected to many articles, and the template is useful in aiding reader navigation.Bless sins (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per above comments. It should also be noted that the template has improved considerably over the last few months, and is being improved, albeit at a slow pace.benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The report that Norwegian extremists have been trying to subvert the pedia by trying to get this deleted followed by the delete vote by HenrikRClausen above is either such clever stage-management it deserves to win the day, or else it is the clearest ever evidence in support of a keep vote. Formerip (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In regards to HenrikRClausen,WP:Don't feed the troll, only the template in question should be debated. --Pudeo' 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Islamophobia is an area of study and there are articles that relate to it. TFD (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Most of the arguments above for deletion are based on POV, rather than Wikipedia's charter to be NPOV. Discussions on, and labeling of Islamofobia (whether correct or justified or not) are a fact of today's society, and not a fringe appearance in some niches. We have a duty to describe it properly and to provide navigational tools around those article. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 01:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Sounds like a medical term for sicknesses like agoraphobia or arachnophobia. But it's politics and ethics, not medicine. Therefore, rename to Anti-Islamism (along the line of Antisemitism) which is a matter of prudence: as long as the template name is POVish, there will always be arguments and edit-wars over its inclusion in border case articles of which many exist. With a more neutral, yet descriptive name a lot of intra-Wiki friction can be elegantly avoided. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Anti-islamism is already used to refer to criticism or opposition towards the political movement called Islamism; at the present time, searching for Antiislamism in the Wikipedia search bar redirects to Criticism of Islamism. I would therefore argue that the use of that term would be inappropriate in this context.
• Keep We have an anti-Semitism template, and I presume we all agree that ought to be kept. Similarly, the Islamophobia template exists for a equivalent purpose, but the etymology of the word is different. That, however, isn't our problem. We're not here to "fix" the English language, we just use whatever term is most commonly applied to the idea we're describing and put up with whatever orthographical idiosyncrasies it may entail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Wang (talk • contribs) 02:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The term is pejorative (the Islamic Human Rights Commission for instance used to hand out Annual Islamophobia Awards for a couple of years). Academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term (Jocelyne Cesari, Securitization and Religious Divides in Europe: Muslims in Western Europe after 9/11 - Why the term Islamophobia is more a predicament than an explanation, p. 5). It's a catch-all term. Numerous scholars reject it (see Islamophobia: criticism section, see Talk:Islamophobia/Sources), and even scholars promoting the term are struggling to define it: One must know what is meant by Islamophobia and what this entails. Unfortunately, this as yet has failed to be adequately achieved (Chris Allen, Islamophobia, Ashgate 2010, page 165). The template violates WP:LABEL and WP:NOTADVOCATE. - Ankimai (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. As nominator I'm distraught to realize how many of the people hwo have cast their votes that have done so without contemplating the reason behind the nomination. A number of keep voters simply argue that Islamophobia is an established term in general use. My grievance, however, is solely based on how this sidebar is employed in articles. Very few seem to consider this instrumental aspect. It is loud and it draws attention, in contrast with ordinary navigational templates that are placed at the bottom of the page, often collapsed. I miss seeing some balanced and earnest discussion of what this template does to enhance the understanding of the articles into which it is placed. __meco (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your orignal comment talked about the problematic use of the term and that is why you got the reactions you are getting. If you now agree that it is not up to Wikipedia to judge the correctness of the term when it is so widely used in society and you now only have a problem with the looks of the template, then you should withdraw this request and suggest changes to the template. However: when I compare this tempalte with the one for antisemitism they look very similar. Did you submit that one for deletion too in the past? Or have you complained about how it is used in articles? Have you complained about its loudness and attention drawing? How you suggested it being moved to the bottom? _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 13:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comparing Islamophobia with Antisemitism instead of anti-Christianity (as many people here do) is pure POV. Our own article on Antisemitism shows the word has its origin in the description of doctrines that explicitly viewed Jews as an inferior race. Our article on Islamophobia shows its origin as a religious prejudice and thus is similar to anti-Christianity. Since Islamophobia is a recent pejorative applied to living people who do not self-describe their views as race supremacist or religion supremacist, care needs to be taken in our usage of the term. Its application to people, their organizations, or their works, makes our template a huge WP:BLP violation unlike historical applications of Antisemitism and anti-Christianity to individuals in these cases explicitly and openly professed supremacist views. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Where you think the template is improperly applied to living people (individuals or organisations) that can be addressed at that particular article. It is no reason to delete the template altogether. As for your claim that "living people who do not self-describe their views as race supremacist or religion supremacist", I could point you to several of these people who talk in terms of "stupid desert religion" when talking about Islam, but I think you can use Google as well as anybody else. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 15:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The google (with quotes) gave 47 entries, all in comment sections, none by authors for which we have articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, comparing islamophobia with antisemitism is what most scholars do (see Islamophobia#Links to other ideologies). As for the design it's the same format as Template:Antisemitism. Du to BLP concerns the template is not used on individuals so your argument there is a strawman. as for self-identifying it seems you are wrong (File:Gathering of eagles.jpg). // Liftarn (talk)
      • Comparing does not mean equating. The authors referenced are being debated in the Talk section. It's a work in progress. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Once again you are twisting words. Most scholars (and several other) agree that there are many parallels between antisemitism in the 1930s and islamophobia today. There are some subtle variations, but for most part they are identical. If you would have read the section I pointed to you would have understood that. // Liftarn (talk)
• Delete per the reasons provided by Pudeo of the template not being useful. This is trivial and should be deleted, in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FYO what experts say is instead "The most important such form of cultural racism today is anti-Muslim racism, sometimes called Islamophobia.". // Liftarn (talk)
• Delete for the many reasons listed above. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: entirely subjectively, I have found the template useful. I can see the objection that it is at present a somewhat gaudy and cumbersome intrusion on some articles, but I think it would be better to improve the template rather than delete it. As a comment I would say that many reasons for both deleting and keeping the template seem to be bad arguments. For example, I can't see any substance to the argument that objections to the term 'islamophobia' are simply instantiations of that very phenomena, nor do I think it is for us to determine whether islamophibia and 1930s antisemitism are isomorphic. It seems to me that this is a term increasingly used by sociologists, and one that is useful, not least in assisting readers to navigate the encyclopaedia. Therefore it is a template that we should maintain. OliverOP (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Another not-very useful "They don't like us" template". Athenean (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep, as per roscelese and liftarn.

*Keep I don't know how I got here but I'm shocked people are making up their own terms of the word and playing semantics on the etymology. Per Roscelese and JonFlaune it should be kept. Seems ridiculous to delete given the fact that it is a widely accepted term by both academics, dictionaries and anti-discrimination organisations such as the Southern Povery Law Center. Numpty9991 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned user Dalai Lama Ding DongReply[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 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 Delete (Note: I took the WikiProject discussion into consideration as well.) - It seems clear from the discussions that the consensus is that the name and wording of the template can be confusing and/or problematic, which affects clarity in usage; and that there are other templates, presumably more specific, which may be more useful/appropriate to a particular situation. With that in mind, once the transclusions are fixed, Template:Wikify should be kept as a dab page similar to Template:Expand, which should help keep non-transcluded links (links in discussions) intact, and also as a help to point towards those specific templates to be used instead (such as Template:Dead end), per the concerns in the discussions, and indeed, per the examples listed in the nom itself. - jc37 17:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I would like this template to be deprecated and deleted redirected to ((Dead end)) modified at 15:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) once the last usage of this template is removed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify has expanded its scope to all of the templates that cover aspects of Wikification. The articles are contained in Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify.

((Wikify)) is one of the most misunderstood templates on the encyclopedia. Many editors believe it is a generic cleanup template. In addition, the large scope of the template makes it difficult for editors, especially ones that are new to wikification, to figure out exactly what needs to be improved. In the future, instead of ((Wikify)), the following templates should be used. (Please feel free to suggest more)

• ((Dead end)) ((Infobox requested)) ((Cleanup-HTML)) ((Lead missing)) ((Lead rewrite)) ((Lead too short)) ((Inadequate lead)) ((Sections)) ((Cleanup-link rot)) ((Citation style))and ((Lead too long))  Ryan Vesey 14:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that as a full protected template, there is no TfD tag on this one. What is the policy for TfD tags on highly visible templates (19,000 articles)? If we do still tag them, can an administrator do that for me? Ryan Vesey

Note: This editor has been tagging a lot of templates and category pages with additional categories for WikiProject Wikify, even though they have nothing to do with Wikifying. Please take into consideration, that this editor might have some misplaced ideas. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note that the aspects of Wikifying can be found here for those who are unaware of them. Ryan Vesey 14:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I apologize, I should have included a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify#No more wikify template where this was discussed locally. Ryan Vesey 14:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: Which tags will be included in the project can be adjusted. The discussion here is about the Wikify tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - this template falls into a category where the meaning is too vague and unclear especially to casual users the purpose of the template is unclear. The template does allow for a reason, but that just adds another level of burdon to using it and the majority of the time there is a more specific template that applies to the reasoning. If kept I recommend the usage instructions be clarified to use it only if another more specific tag isn't available. Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The way I have always seen this template used is that it specifically means you need to add wiki-links to the article. That is a pretty specific non-generic usage, which none of the other tags you list above take care of. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ((Dead end)) should be used for pages where the only concern is lack of wiki-links. Ryan Vesey 15:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And I find that a less helpful template, that is not what one thinks of when one thinks it needs more links. They think this page needs to be wikified. I would never think oh this is probably called dead end. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I had forgotten about part of the discussion earlier, but it may be possible to redirect ((Wikify)) to dead end instead of deleting it. That said, it needs to be deprecated so that the backlog can be cleared before that happens. Alternatively, Dead end could be redirected to the Wikify template which could only mention wikilinks. Initial consensus was that having Wikify only refer to lack of wikilinks could be confusing because wikifying an article deals with much more than that. Ryan Vesey 15:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Would be fine with either of those options. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Deprecate and redirect to ((Dead end)) I participated in the discussions about Wikify for a long time now. ((Deadend)) now expanded to catch no only pages with no links but pages with few links. This means it fully covers the initial purpose of Wikify. At the same point Wikify expanded to cover more stuff like bold, infoboxes, etc. We had two options: Or we add parameters to Wikify or we create more specific templates. For some time we tried both ways. We made Wikify's wording more specific and created some extra templates. Keeping Wikify in its new form makes it redundant to ((Multiple issues)). The current trend in the community is to have more specific tags so that the editors who see them can actually do something and now when to remove them. Generic templates like "Needs fix" don't help. We had a lot of discussions in the past for similar cases. Wikify has served its purpose in the past. Now we have to move on. Use deadend for wikilinks, rename it if you like. Use Multiple issues to add more tasks. Discuss in the WikiProject Wikify which tasks it will cover. The generic wikify template is useless in this context. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course after deleting we can make a redirect to deadend or what the new name will be. As soon as we decide that we need a tag solely for wikilinks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps this is too specific for this discussion, but we could always redirect both to ((Wikilinks)) (a currently non-existent template). Ryan Vesey 15:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I like that idea. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be appropriate to move ((Dead end)) to ((Wikilinks)) barring opposition here or does the discussion need to occur elsewhere? I see no reason to change anything in the template. Ryan Vesey 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about changing the image from File:Dead End sign.svg to File:Ambox wikify.svg seeing as the template would not exclusively deal with pages with zero links ("dead ends"). benzband (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking having ((Wikilinks)) and ((Dead end)) as separate templates might be beneficial because a dead end page might be more urgent than one simply lacking enough. The wikilinks tag would have the Ambox wikify and Dead end would retain dead end. What do you think? Ryan Vesey 23:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that's a good idea :) benzband (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note This has been here before Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 31#Template:Dead end -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea of merging them was rejected but the discussion was very short at this point. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, that discussion didn't include what else would take Wikify's place. I would have opposed it too. Ryan Vesey 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per this discussion at WT:WWF. Oh yeah, and at least wait for the August drive to finish. benzband (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That discussion was not wide enough for the proposals it made (adding categories to many templates and category pages), and was dominated by one quite aggressive editor. I think that discussion is no indication of anything. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Deprecate/rename. as nom suggests. This is a very sensible rationalization, wifify is used at least as often as a synonym for dead end already. No objection to any necessary readjustments of explanatory text and layout, I simply support the rationalization. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep according to what the template states, you should be able to use this to tag articles lacking wikiformatting (which is not the same as wikilinks) , so this would work with unformatted articles, PRE formatted articles, HTML formatted articles, space/tab/carriagereturn formatted articles -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have specific tags for every form of wikifycation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Wikifying has always meant adding internal links. If ((Dead end)) would be nominated, I would agree. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please show me what work you have done with Wikification that shows that wikifying has always meant adding internal link. Your lack of knowledge of the process does not mean that is the case. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• In fact, your confusion shows exactly why this template does need to be deprecated and redirected. Editors do not understand what it means. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. You are around on Wikipedia 1.5 years. I over 5 years. So please don't be insolent.
2. I change my reason for keep: Wikification is more than just adding internal links. But instead of adding 4 different tags to a beginner's article, asking for e.g. adding internal links, references markup, a lead section and certain stylistic improvements, it is more concise and just as clear to add the Wikify template. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or the ((multiple issues)) template, with the four reasons in it. This forces the tagger to specify what needs to be done, and thus helps the folks who run around cleaning it all up. benzband (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete The meaning of the template is so vague that it's rampantly misused. To wit: Elementary algebra, Typed link, ‪Hephaestus‬, hypnotherapy, and Kenya Defence Forces all seem to be misusing it as ((cleanup)) (itself a problematic template) — those articles are all messy in various ways, but none need "wikilinks[…]any form of wiki-markup, such as standard headings and layout, including the addition of infoboxes and other templates, or bolding/italicizing of text." The most common definition of "wikify" seems to be "add wikilinks", which already has its own template in the form of ((dead end)). Every other form of cleanup has its own template, leaving ((wikify)) a confused, ambiguous template with no foreseeable purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I call for a procedural close of this discussion. The nominator has significantly changed his proposal after all of the above discussions, and it is now impossible to keep track of the replies as they relate to the present proposal. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you kidding? A minor change was made at the beginning of this (prior to your keep !vote by the way). Quit your pointy disruptions. Ryan Vesey 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed with the pointlessness. Even with the minor change, people are still !voting delete, so closing it would just be needless bureaucracy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the discussion is OK so far. The question is:

• If wikify is only about wikilinks and ((dead end)) has changed to cover pages with few wikilinks, why we need both templates?
• If wikify is not only about wikilinks why not describe exactly what is about by proving more explicit templates?

In both cases, today's wikify tag is useless but to the existence of ((dead end)) and ((multiple issues)). The details: which tags are part of wikify, what is going to be the new name of ((dead end)) don;t have to be discussed here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recall this is a not a majority vote. The closing admin will check the discussion and even if some people !voted for deletion if the only meant "deprecate" this is going to be the result. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete The word wikify is many times mis-interpreted. I have seen many those articles with this tag which doesn't needs it. Breaking it will make this less frequent and will also provide a great help to wikifiers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete This template is one of the most confusing in Wikipedia. It overlaps with ((Clean up)), ((Copyedit)), ((Dead end)) and many other tags. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, or redirect to ((Dead end)); this way, we can make a dent in the massive backlog of articles Twinkle-tagged by editors who used a catchall tag instead of taking the time to find a more-specific one. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• There's no way that the template can be deleted or redirected with its current ~20,000 transclusion count, much of which (per the wording of the template) consists of articles which had additional reasons (in terms of general wikicode improvement) beyond the addition of links to be tagged. I'm unimpressed with the recent campaign to do away with any general "this article makes basic MoS errors that need to be corrected" templates (including ((cleanup)) and ((copyedit))) which seems to have resulted from a general sentiment that if only we don't have tags on an article then its problems will magically go away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I'm unimpressed with the tendency of people who mass-apply relatively generic templates to portray those who aren't keen on them as being unintelligent or short-sighted. —WFC— 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ((Expand)) was successfully deprecated and it had far more transclusions. If a template this widely used is deleted, it can easily and quickly be removed by a bot, as ((expand)) was. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Depreciate. Notwithstanding my response to Chris above, he is right to point out that to redirect to ((dead end)) now would result in a significant error rate. One way or another this template is redundant – to ((cleanup)) if this is intended to be generic, and ((dead end)) if it's intended to denote a lack of wikilinks. But in the short term we should curb the template's use and encourage relevant alternatives. —WFC— 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I use this tag (and the associated category) to find articles that need cleanup quite frequently. That is, the tag helps me to find articles that need Wikification, and then because someone placed the tag, I clean up the article. This is a highly useful tag, and I am at a loss as to why someone would want to delete it. I see no use in making it harder for me and other people to find articles that need cleanup. --Jayron32 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Deprecate and redirect to ((Dead end)). As someone who participates in wikification drives, I find it far too vague. The proposal for more specific tags is a good one. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete/Redirect/Rename: The word "Wikify" has always been unclear despite being a Wikifier myself. Does it mean adding internal links, formatting articles to Wikipedia guidelines and standards or just cleaning up the article? It is better to get rid of Wikipedia-specific terminology whenever possible and replace it with normal English words. Gizza^{Talk ©} 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fix - Wikify, the template, is an absolute mess. There are 8 functions which must be checked for each article, most of them have their own tags. Wikify, the template, should either be modified to support direct Wikification notices from taggers like AWB as defacto 'multiple-issues' style concern, or if there are no other tags, leave a single clean up template. Multiple issues functions in much the same way. Rather then opt for the removal of the Wikify project with 10 different banners which could kill the page flow and distract the reader, a clean and concise option should be made for viewing it. One which will instruct how to correct via a link with a one or two word notice, or even something as simple as an 'A7' or 'G3'-like code system. Detection of these issues should be made a priority afterwards so Wikipedia can have a concentrated effort to fix these problems. So I wouldn't be opposed to 10 categories of tagged pages all under the Wikify project. It may be the easiest way to fix the most glaring errors quickly and deal with the problems once and for all. Rather than play 'tag' and 'untag'. 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Deprecate. "Wikify" is wiki in-speak and casual readers/editors will have no clue what it means. ((dead end)) is much more descriptive and serves the same purpose. The wording is simple and might encourage casual users to jump in and improve the article. NB: Anyone who knows what "wikify" means will probably also be able to recognize an article that needs to be wikified when they see it, even without the template. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 04:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I find deadend to be more narrow...too narrow. Wikification is much more than what deadend describes. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we all agree that wikification is more than adding wikilinks. The think is that we can describe this to new editors more explicitly with more specific tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Deprecate - The Wikify tag, as currently used (or possibly misused) is a grab-bag of issues. It's sometimes completely unclear what improvement has been requested and its replacement with a set of tags that cover the same territory will make it much clearer what cleanup work needs to be done. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Deprecate Many users use Wikify incorrectly, which makes it more confusing and difficult to correct the problem that the users are noting as needing a fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold Standard (talk • contribs)

• Delete - Here's my proposal: Have one template that means more links are needed, and use the more specific tags instead of wikify. Manually change each article in Category:Articles that need to be wikified with reasons given. Give an appropriate amount of time for developers of AWB, Twinkle, and other tools to change their tagging logic. Have a bot change all wikify and wikify section tags added before this change in May 2011 to the template that means more links are needed, and delete all wikify and wikify section tags after May 2011. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Wikify is a collection of duties or tasks that need to be done. At a glance an experienced Wikipedia might tell what is required to be done, while on the other hand there is this confusion of what needs to be done on the article to new contributors or the not_so_experienced Wikipedians so to say. Having templates that are specific on what exactly needs to be done to improve an article would be a better replacement for Wikify. ₫ӓ₩₳ _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 12:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: there is clear ambiguity as to whether "Wikify" means "Add some links" or "Fix it up in whatever unspecified ways it needs fixing, which may include adding links". It is much more useful to add one or more tags which specify what needs to be done - then editors who enjoy fixing a specific kind of problem can easily find, and work on, articles which need their chosen kind of attention, and other editors will know what the tagger had in mind when they assigned the one or several tags. PamD 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fix - I believe that rather then deleting it that it should be fixed because I have seen it used on many pages extremely well and it tells me what to try and do but other times I see lazy buggers just paste it there and hope someone else fixes it without telling them what needs to be fixed. I do think that the dead link idea is a good one though Lunashy_{Friendship letters.}^{write a friendship letter} 06:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Depreciate -- A complete reformation of the wikification system is needed, and we can start with this template. ((Wikify)) has become a joke, and this TfD will, I hope, be an excellent first step in the right direction. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify, wikifying means much more than just adding internal links. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify, this is why the template is up for deletion/deprecation. benzband (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 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 Delete; deleted as G7 by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Js-demo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear (to me). DH85868993 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 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 Delete; deleted as G2 by Panyd (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Storm stats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Storm stats 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete It's even unfinished.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 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 Speedy Delete G7 --j⚛e decker^talk 04:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Electorate result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Electorate result summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy delete as creator. These were part of an experimental method of showing seat results that didn't end up being adopted, and I forgot to get rid of them when they were done. Frickeg (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 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 Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Military aircraft by nationality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 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 Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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 section.