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) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox webnews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox website)); only eleven transcriptions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:48, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Schuylkill Navy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

'Redundant to ((Infobox rowing club)); only twelve transcriptions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox street course race (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox motor race)), with minor modifications. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Pickup Truck driver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox racing driver)); only nine transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ISP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox company)); no ISP-specific fields; only 4 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:51, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox chain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox company)); only 26 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:52, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox British Basketball League team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 46 transclusions

Template:Infobox British Basketball League defunct team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 13 transclusions

Each redundant to ((Infobox basketball club)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:57, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CBB Tourney (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on just two college basketball articles, but the source code has switches for many sports; so presumably a copy of another infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Probably a copy of ((Infobox Sports league)) -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Info Japan Interchange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox road junction)), with which I have just replace the only two instances; thus orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant and orphaned. Imzadi 1979 → 10:52, 13 March 2012 (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 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) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox biathlete (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox sportsperson)), with minor modifications. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant once minor modifications are made. Imzadi 1979 → 10:53, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox LACMTA line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox rail line)); only 8 transclusions; little scope for others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:53, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Green Line coaches route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox bus line)). Only six transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:55, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Environmental initiative (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use. SUBST, or replace with something more generic? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—if we had a generic infobox for events that aren't news events. Something that would apply to regular fundraisers or other events like Relay For Life or regular trade shows or conventions like COMDEX. Imzadi 1979 → 11:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • template:infobox recurring event? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox county team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four instances, all for teams in Cork, in a variety of sports. Redundant to ((Infobox organisation)), or each specific sports' infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:59, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox diver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox sportsperson)), if we add |partner= and |formerpartner= to the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If diver is the only one to use |partner= and |formerpartner= I suggest we only convert diver's code to sportsperson with the addition of these 2 parameters. Otherwise, I agree with the nominator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant as suggested after minor modifications. The partner parameters would also be beneficial for use on pairs figure skaters or ice dancers, among other possibilities. That would be a net plus in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 11:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and add the missing parameters to ((Infobox sportsperson)). --Mark91it's my world 11:29, 15 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Corporate program (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use. SUBST, or replace with something more generic? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments—maybe this could be replaced with ((Infobox organization)), with or without some minor modifications? Imzadi 1979 → 11:07, 13 March 2012 (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 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. (Speedy deletion criterion G7: One author who has requested deletion.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uttar Pradesh 2012 MLAs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template that is in fact just plain text. No need to put this in a template. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all election articles put results on a template. this one adds 90k to a page and is better transcluded. See the current templates for the electons on the front page...surprised this was added here.

But if it were to be moved somwehre else to be transcluded to the page that perfectly fineLihaas (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the main reason why it shouldn't be a template (not yet at least), is because about 100 entries in the place names need disambiguation. several editors chipped in the last few days and cleaned up some of the links. i cleaned up a lot myself. A lot more needs to be done, and if it is moved to a template other editors will not feel as comfortable editing it. I am removing the template link on the main page, and reinstating the table.

As for the article length, it has a lot of unnecessary unencyclopedic stuff at the top. I am compacting those right now. mukerjee (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is not a reason for deletion. the code is EXACTLY the same as on the page so theres no difficulty to edit it...the real lenght is 90k of this. As for "compacting" theres a consensus discussion on that page.Lihaas (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox coaching organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox organization)), with which I have just replaced the only 3 instances, so orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant and orphaned. Imzadi 1979 → 12:32, 12 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bengali culture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Culture of Bengal)) - Chandan Guha (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, it is redundant, and not necessary.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2012 (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 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 merge as ((Infobox murderer)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox mass murderer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox serial killer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox mass murderer (93 transclusions) with Template:Infobox serial killer (418 transclusions).
Very similar templates. Merge at, say, Infobox murderer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge—per nom; either title is acceptable to me. Imzadi 1979 → 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge A serial killer and a mass murderer are absolutely not the same thing. By way of example Ted Bundy was a serial killer, Jared Laughner is a mass murderer. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a question of how similar, or not, serial killers and mass murderers are, but of how similar the two templates are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional merge On the grounds of template similarity, I think there is a case to merge the two together. However, to avoid the obvious criticism stated by Bebblebrox above and to help users recognise what the new (post-merge) template covers, I agree with the nom that it might be best to rename it to ((Infobox murderer)). I'll also head off a potential suggestion that the templates be merged into ((Infobox criminal)) by pointing out that school shooters, for example, are increasingly seen as victims of society and it may be considered inappropriate to label them with ((Infobox criminal)) as opposed to the more neutral ((Infobox murderer)). ClaretAsh 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional merge to Infobox murderer. I originally wanted to say no, but they can be merged to this easily.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional merge or Do not merge ((Infobox mass murderer)) provides an option to describe a single mass murder in detail, while ((Infobox serial killer)) only provides an option of beginyear and endyear of the murder series. I suppose they could be merged, but only if both options (for a more detailed description of a single mass murder and a general description of a series of individual murders) would be preserved in a new template. And also both of these templates referred to the people who committed several murders, am I right that there is a consensus for a new proposed template ((Infobox murderer)) to be used also for those who committed a single murder? --Potorochin (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. mabdul 11:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge as templates provide separate options and serial killers are not the same as mass murderers. -Nard 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As individual parameters are not mandatory, separate options will still be available where needed. Many serial killers are mass murderers. many mass murderers are serial killers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not so sure about your last statement that many serial killers are mass murderers and vice versa. According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as a murder of four or more people occurring during a particular event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders. And a serial killer is defined as an individual who has committed three or more murders over a period of more than a month, with down time (a "cooling off period") between the different murders. So I see a clear difference between the two. But I would be really interested in your examples of serial killers being mass murderers, i.e. people who committed several mass murders of four or more people, with a "cooling off period" between the different mass murders. --Potorochin (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is Wikipedia, not FBIpedia; we're not constrained by their arbitrary definitions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • These definitions were taken from the Wikipedia articles about mass murder and serial killer, not from FBIpedia . Do you describe the Wikipedia definitions as arbitrary? --Potorochin (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • They're not "the Wikipedia definitions"; they;re arbitrary FBI definitions, quoted in Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • To my mind, FBI is very reputable source in this area, that is why their definitions were used in these Wikipedia articles. But if you have some alternative, not "arbitrary", definitions of mass murder and serial killer would you be so kind to provide them here? --Daniel (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox manufacturing company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox company)); only 15 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; no need for a separate template here (and it has almost the same fields anyway). Robofish (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 12:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (not sure if there is a non-redundant field at the moment); will check tomorrow if the template is not deleted until then. mabdul 11:32, 23 March 2012 (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 section.

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

The result of the discussion was keep. It is recommended that the backlog of COI articles be cleared first. --  Denelson83  08:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also this five year old discussion
Template serves no real purpose. If a contributor has a COI, then deal with them, not the article; if the article is not neutral, then there is a tag for that. This COI tag is not helpful to the reader (or is redudant to NPOV for that purpose), is prone to abuse, and becomes meaningless when the COI/SPA editor leaves the project. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - this covers more than only ((neutral)), it also covers ((tone)), ((advert)). It is helpful to the organisation of articles, to see what problems c/should be found, and just like any tag, it is not helpful to the reader, it is helpful to the editors. That it is prone to abuse is a non-reason, every tag is prone to abuse (actually, one should warn, and possibly sanction the users who do abuse this tag). And it certainly still has meaning when the editor has already left the project, it shows which problems should be solved in the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, this is troublesome for all sorts of reasons. It isn't really a cleanup tag, and isn't really a dispute tag either, so it's not clear precisely what editors are supposed to do about it. ((tone)) and ((advert)) have specific remedies, and ((neutral)) implies that there is an open dispute, while this mostly just points a finger at some "bad" contributor. It isn't really right to single out editors like this in articlespace: COI should be flagged at WP:COIN and dealt with there. Lastly, "just because something is prone to abuse doesn't make it bad" is a common argument to make, but it is plain to see that we do consider potential for abuse (and indeed examples of abuse) when weighing up the utility of things around herE: that's why we don't just give the adminship bit to everyone, for instance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm inclined to agree that this template probably does more harm than good. Especially given the mess our COI policies are in at the moment, simply saying 'the creator(s) of this article may have a COI!' is not terribly useful for readers. With other templates it's usually fairly clear what's supposed to be done to fix the problem, but not so much with this one. Besides, we also have ((Connected contributor)) for use on talk pages; where an editor is undeniably linked with a certain article, that's a much less obtrusive way of indicating it, that doesn't scream out loud that it's a problem that must be dealt with. Robofish (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chris. This is just a badge of shame or a thinly veiled attack on an editor. If there are multiple issues with the article (rather than the editor), then ((article issues)) can be used. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - The template populates Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest which contains right now 6,303 articles. I'm not sure whether there are currently systematic efforts to handle them. But in either case: What is being proposed with respect to the categories upon deletion of the template? --Tikiwont (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least in theory, ((COI)) is a dispute tag, and thus should only be employed where a dispute has been raised on the article talk page. As such, it would be fine to upmerge the category to its parent, category:NPOV disputes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As a content contributer who often has to deal with these issues (and occasionally, when working as an oversighter) I can tell you that clearing up COI problems from articles can be extremely difficult, especially where there are a multiplicity of COI editors or one with a multiplicity of socks. While the issues remain unresolved, this tag is very useful indeed. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm going to have to agree with everyone who said Delete. It can be used as a badge of shame, and there is the neutrality tag to take its place. Clearing COI problems may be difficult, but ((NPOV)) can still be used in the place of ((COI)) anyway. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 13:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it to be a useful stick one can wield in COI discussions, and as a signal to readers it has its use as well. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the lack of neutrality that comes with a conflict of interest is distinct enough from regular bias of opinion that a separate tag is justified. Hairhorn (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while this tag may be abused, it is very helpful for clearly identifying low-profile pages on topics that may be notable, but are essentially autobiographical. a13ean (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To quote myself from a discussion three years ago, "If the article is ((Nonnotable)), ((POV)), ((unbalanced)), an ((Advert)), needs ((cleanup)) or ((Unreferenced)), or whatever, we have plenty of templates to say what the real problem is. But if it's a perfectly fine, NPOV article that just happens to have been written by someone with a potential conflict of interest, what is the point in marking it with a ((COI)) banner?" If anything, ((Connected contributor)) would be a better replacement for any purpose this template serves that is not served by tagging with a real cleanup template. Anomie⚔ 18:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• COI templates are often removed because the article has since been cleaned up, I don't see a problem with that kind of use of the template. Hairhorn (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what does that do that using cleanup templates that identify the actual problem doesn't? Anomie⚔ 23:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just don't agree with the nominator's logic. This template serves as a warning to editors to be even more diligent than usual when checking an article's neutrality and an editor's point of view in any discussions related to that article. As to what the nominator means by "deal with the editor" - I don't know. We don't forbid editors to write in articles because they have an COI. It is just reason to be very careful in evaluating his posts (in all namespaces), which is precisely what this template warns about. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - how can this be a "badge of shame" when it never specifically identifies the problem contributor? The "tone" and "article issues" tags don't quite cover the same things. A separate tag for this is justified. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's useful as a warning to readers in cases where cleanup is difficult, but examination of the history tab shows ample evidence that it was submitted in bad faith. Many articles, upon superficial inspection at NPP, appear neutral enough to avoid G11 and notable enough to avoid A7, attract little attention outside other than paid editing and should be assumed biased until proven otherwise. Kilopi (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in response to some of the above comments and questions. COI editors whose edits are problematic should be told about our policies, reported to the COI noticeboard or otherwise dealt with. But COI editors are not forbidden from editing Wikipedia if they follow the guidelines and policies. Slapping this tag on articles in which they are involved without pointing out specific content issues is totally unnecessary and amounts to an infinite badge of shame because the issue it points out cannot be addressed even if the article complies with our standards : the "major contributor" that "has a close connection to the subject" will always be in the page history. So again, if an article needs cleanup, we have plenty of tags to point out what should be done specifically, and if a COI editor is editing an article in a manner not compatible with our policies and guidelines, we have the ((COI-check)) tag; someone will check the article, fix it if necessary, and remove the tag. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  reply to comment - "COI editors are not forbidden from editing" is a red herring in this discussion - it is also not forbidden to create an article that is totally unreferenced, or to create an article that is not stating its notability. Those articles get tagged as well. It is not a badge of shame that we then put ((unreferenced)) or ((notability)) on the article, it is a general concern to what should be changed in the article. It is equally 'biting' to editors creating an article without references to have 'their' article tagged as 'someone who edited this article did not add references to this', as that it would be to a coi editor to have 'their' article tagged as 'someone has a conflict of interest with this, and it should be checked for neutrality and other common problems that occur with COI editing' .. and both are clearly in the page history, and both should be talked to on their talkpages as well. Do you think that it is less bitey when someone who creates a non-POV, spammy, advertising, autobiographical, unreferenced, article gets '((uw-spam1)), ((uw-npov1)), ((uw-unreferenced)), ((uw-advert1)), and what else on their their talkpage and ((neutral)), ((advert)), ((tone)), ((unreferenced)) on 'their article', or only a friendly ((uw-coi)) on their talkpage, asking them to take care and maybe have a second look at their article, and a ((coi)) on 'their' article so others can take out the common problems with that? I think the latter is much less bitey and intrusive. Having all those other tags on 'your' article must really be a run-down to show you what you have done wrong with the article ... Also note, that if an article does not show any problems with our policies and guidelines, then that tag should be deleted, that tag is NOT meant to be used when a COI editor makes a perfectly good article, it is only meant to be used when someone considers that there are problems with the article. WP:COI is not here to harass conflict of interest editors, WP:COI is here to inform conflict of interest editors how they should handle their conflict of interest, and how to avoid problems with that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This isn't a "badge of shame" but rather a warning to the reader that the article might not be as neutral as desired. Eeekster (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What exactly do you think a badge of shame is, if not a warning to the viewer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have to laugh when someone who never works at WP:COI or WP:COIN does something like this. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe other people don't share your enthusiasm for your line of "work". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is true, but I myself don't work at WP:COI or WP:COIN amd I still use the template. Osarius Talk 10:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see what enthusiasm has to do with deleting anything on WP, let alone a template use over 3200 times. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a very serious issue that benefits substantially when it is explicitly tagged. Npmay (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - All maintainance templates were created for a specific reason, this one included. It helps when there is a COI issue on the article and tells other editors to be diligent in looking for and removing these COI issues. Not everyone reads talk pages... Osarius Talk 10:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this tag has no legitimate use. If an article truly does have COI issues, then it should be tagged with an appropriate cleanup tag (POV, adv, etc.) A generic tag saying "Someone who once edited this page might have had a Conflicting interest" serves no legitimate purpose. @ Osarius, maintenance tags can be created by anyone, without any sort of discussion. That is why we has so many redundant cleanup tags with extremely minor wording differences. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By way of explaining why I will relate how I usually use this. If I find a case where someone with an obvious conflict of interest has edited an article to skew the POV, I tag it with this, then read over the entire article to identify the problematic areas. Then I go through and rewrite those sections in a more neutral way or remove them if they just don't have any place in a WP article. Then I remove the tag. Does everyone use it this way? No. Some people just tag and move on. That is a problem with those users, not the tag itself. The claim that this is only to be used a badge of shame and has no legitamte purpose is bunk. It is a warning to users that they are reading an article that is not up to WP standards, and they should therefore take what it says with a grain of salt. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we aren't writing this thing for own amusement, it is an educational tool, and persons using should be informed when they are reading an article that has been noted as having serious problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this template has only negative effect: instead of highlighting issues to be addressed it just informs everyone of irrelevant detail. The real content issues should be tagged with appropriate templates instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should criticise bad content, not (often well-intentioned) people.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a useful template. We have many templates that can be misused, but this is not a reasonable argument for deletion. Yworo (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And an unqualified "this is useful" is no argument at all for preserving it. There are specific concerns with this template that "this is useful" doesn't address, and that applies to all such comments above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it serves a very real purpose for the reader: It alerts them to the type of non-neutral language they are likely to encounter. Knowing the specific reason that an article is untrustworthy is quite helpful for letting readers know what to expect. --Jayron32 04:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have ((advert)), ((weasel)), ((peacock)) for concerns over the prose. None of them have the unpleasantries that this does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really think that it is nice that an editor gets ((advert)) on his article and ((uw-advert1)) on their talkpage? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a useful template both to readers and to other editors. —teb728 t c 06:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To throw my own two cents into the ring, I have to say that this should be kept. I won't deny that it can be misused but overall the tag is useful as far as editing and warning goes. If an article is being edited by someone that is directly related to the article subject or stands to gain from a specific (usually positive) viewpoint of the article, then the article should be labeled as such. If the publicist for Katie Holmes was editing her article then it should be labeled as such so people are aware that someone with a conflict of interest is editing the article. Even if said publicist was the very letter of neutral and unbiased, providing independent sources for everything, it is still better to have that warning on the article than for people to read the article unaware of the potential conflict of interest and then later assume that we're just a publicity site. Done right, the tag really isn't that much of a shaming device and I've seen people work around it with little to no issues. Unfortunately most of my experience with the tag has been where users were trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium and have ignored all attempts to warn them about COI editing, so there is a definite need for this in this aspect as well. This is a necessary evil, unfortunately. If I thought that labeling an article as NPOV or similar would do it alone, I'd vote otherwise but COI is a needed tag. I do, however, think that there needs to be more of a defined time limit for how long the tag remains on the article. If multiple years pass and/or the article is very different from what was originally posted, shouldn't the tag be removed if the article is neutrally written and unbiased? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. It is too easy to misuse the template and tag just any article that was written by a user with COI. The article may be just fine anyway, and a specific problem should be identified and then marked either with ((dispute)) or ((accuracy)). There is also a talk page template available, ((connected contributor)), that marks the possible COI but does not make the article seem bad if it is not bad (in reply to the Tokyogirl79 post). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How is this template more easy to misuse than e.g. ((advert))?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't remember saying this but it's true. As far as I understand, the cleanup templates should be used for specific problems that may be corrected, not for the information about people who have written the article. In the case of ((advert)), the message clearly informs about the problem with article, therefore its usage is clear, and it's less believable that it will be misused. In the case of ((COI)), it doesn't, and it may be too easy to misuse the template to tag any article that was written by a user with (or even without) COI, also when nothing is wrong with the article. The template is in any case redundant to ((connected contributor)). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I was reacting to your "It is too easy to misuse the template ..." - ((advert)) means that someone wrote the article as an advertisement - that is a specific problem with an article. ((COI)) means that someone wrote this article with a conflict of interest, and that the article hence should be checked for problems associated with that (NPOV is one, but advertising and others are also concerns). It is not misuse to tag an article with ((COI)) when a conflict of interest editor has written the article, just like it is not misuse when someone has written an article like an advert (that editor is then likely also having a conflict of interest, but that is not necessary). Slamming a ((COI)) on an article which is obviously written by someone not involved in the article is a form of misuse, but similarly it would be misuse to slam ((advert)) on an article which is written in a perfect NPOV way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mainspace templates should articulate fixable problems. This is not a fixable problem and is redundant to ((connected contributor)), which is worded more neutrally and also records the name of the COI user. This kind of issue should only be tagged on the talk page. --NYKevin @884, i.e. 20:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chris and Anomie. Let this be a first step in trying to build some sanity into our COI policies. So a user has a conflict of interest? Big deal! It's how they assert their COI that matters, not the mere fact of having one. How many of us have not edited an article with which we're connected (e.g. hometown/school etc). Don't we have policies somewhere about assuming good faith and commenting on the contributions not the contributor? As for the assertion above that ((COI)) serves as a warning to readers to be more diligent regarding an article's neutrality, I think I'll quote my own userpage here:

"Sure, there are spammers, vandals and POV-pushers all bringing Wikipedia's reliability into question. But, this just means that Wikipedia needs to be read intelligently. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, where the veracity of the text depends on the authority of the contributors and publishers, Wikipedia is open. Anyone can see from where we get our information. Every meme can be traced. If a reader chooses to unquestioningly believe what they read, the risks and the responsibilities of doing so are entirely theirs." ClaretAsh 23:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Is it spam? ((db-g11)). Is it overly promotional? ((advert)). Is it opinionated? ((POV)). Is it only sourced to primary sources? ((primary sources)). Is it non-notable? ((PROD)) or ((AFD)). Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And if it is written by a editor with a conflict of interest, use ((COI)). Yes, there are other tags, but they address different problems. ((COI)) covers a whole set of problems in one, including the ones you mention. Note, we do not delete all articles which are spam ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a reasonably valuable piece of information for the readers, it's certainly no less valuable than a generic POV or Advert tag, because it tells the reader more about the kind of issue they can expect. Clear instances of self-congratulating nonsense can and should be tagged with a harsher tag, but COI issues can often be subtle enough to go under the radar of the average reader. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as practical and transparent attribution for editors and readers. COI policy does need looking at, but removing this without rethinking broader implications is tail wagging the dog. Widefox (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dweller and Debresser. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but change. It works well as a "there is a problem" tag that should be replaced with a more specific tag once the suspected COI is investigated. It's a bit like a ((db-a7)) where it should be replaced with something more specific but can be used to tag an article with a known COI but the editor doesn't have time to investigate QU ^TalkQu 09:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To deal with the nominator's claims: The template is very useful, contrary to the nominator's claim that "Template serves no real purpose." What does "If a contributor has a COI, then deal with them, not the article" mean? How do we "deal with" a COI editor? And why should we not "deal with" the article? It is true that "if the article is not neutral, then there is a tag for that", but this does something different: it warns us that the article has been written by someone with a potential conflict of interest, which may lead to evident neutrality problems, but which may also lead to a subtly different point of view from that of an outsider, or may lead to point of view issues which are not subtle, but which may not be immediately obvious to an outsider. Why is the tag "not helpful to the reader"? When I read an article, it is relevant to me to know whether the article is written by an independent third party observer or by someone with a potential personal interest. In what way is the template "prone to abuse", and is it any more so than many other templates? If we deleted everything that somebody sometime has abused we would not have a lot of Wikipedia left. Most puzzling of all, why does the template "become meaningless when the COI/SPA editor leaves the project"? Why on earth does it cease to be relevant that an article was written by someone with a conflict of interest just because that person is no longer editing Wikipedia? I don't even begin to see the logic there. OK, those are just the nominators' arguments, but similar remarks apply to subsequent "delete" arguments. The main argument for deletion, which has been put forward in different words by several people commenting above, is that if an article has no problems, there is no point in marking it as having a COI, while if there are problems then those particular problems should be addressed. However, that overlooks two points. Firstly, being written with a conflict of interest may introduce fairly unobvious problems, which may be difficult for an outsider to pin down. Secondly, being written by an insider may in itself change the status of information, even if there is no visible bias. One more point. While it is true that all sorts of tags, including this one, are sometimes just placed on articles instead of any attempt to deal with the issues, that is not, as some commentators seem to think, the only way this template is used. In my experience, if this template is added to an article, it often draws other editors' attention to the possibility of problems, with the result that the article is examined and cleaned up, after which the template can be removed. I have even known it to draw the attention of the COI editor to the possibility of problems, with the result that they have gone back and made improvements. A useful template, to be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this tag is very useful, and could not meaningfully be replaced by NPOV. It is also a clue to original research, insider knowledge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per JamesBWatson's comments, just above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, necessary, relevant, and not duplicative; but there should be some established way of removing it after a while as it's currently open-ended. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This tag is different from POV because it marks the article as being at-risk for a specific kind of POV. It is useful to editors who are attempting to improve the article as it provides them with an important piece of information about the subject. I do agree with Stifle that there should be clearer conditions for removing the tag, though. -- LWG ^talk 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This tag is particularly useful to readers to understand that what they may be reading may have edits from parties with a less the neutral intent, and that there may be a ongoing dispute. Phearson (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Dweller and Debresser pointed out, this tag is enormously useful in practice (and I feel that this discussion might benefit from more participation by editors who actually do the hard and unrewarding work of detecting and fixing the problems arising from COI editing - which, in my humble opinion, consist one of the most serious and growing threats to Wikipedia in the long term, as the number of COI editors rises and they become more skillful in skirting Wikipedia policies, while the number of regular users who try to uphold these policies stagnates or even dwindles). What's more, the last argument given in the nomination is fallacious: When a COI editor stops editing, the problematic text still remains and both readers and editors continue to benefit from such a warning - until a non-COI editor reviews the article and fixes possible problems, at which point the tag will be removed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Require explanation on talk page, if this is kept it must be mandatory to explain on the talk page. 75% of the time I see this tag, I have no idea why it's there. If you drive-by tag this and don't explain why you did, how is anyone supposed to know about this growing threat to Wikipedia, as HaeB (talk · contribs) calls it above? I would say that from now on, any unexplained COI tag should be deleted without comment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that seems a bit to restrictive. The way I usually use this is to tag an article that I intend to fix myself, usually right away. The tag is just there while that is going on to inform readers of the problem, and then I remove it when I am done. No discussion needed in that case, but for others that do not actually try and fix the problem but just slap the tag on I agree they ertainly should explain themselves on the talk page and in doing so specifically identify the perceived problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dispute template, which categorises pages into an NPOV category. It is therefore already mandatory that it be accompanied by discussion on the talk page. It should not be used as a generic "blatant ad" cleanup template, and Dondegroovily is perfectly right to suggest that removal of this template is uncontroversial if there is not a present dispute on talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that if you fix the problem in the five or ten minute period after you add the tag you don't need to have a discussion, whether it is mandatory or not. If you don't do that, of course you should discuss the issue on the talk page, but really that isn't what we are here to discuss. It should be noted on the template's doc page however. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no issue with that. However, evidence suggests that the vast, vast majority of current transclusions of this template are not tied to live disputes and are therefore either a) there as a resutl of negligence on behalf of the tagger or b) intended as badges of shame. If the majority of transclusions are through misuse and a straw poll of the peanut gallery (as here) can't see the problem then we evidently need to do something about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Warnings about POV are not very specific; COI helps tell the reader what type of POV may be present. Allens (talk | contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it's not a vote or anything, but I count 28 keep comments and 12 delete comments. The majority of keepers have added a detailed rationale to their comments, so it's not just snout counting to say that consensus seems to be leaning rather heavily in favor of keeping one week into this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of the keep comments have not done one jot to address the deletion concerns. That's precisely why it isn't a vote, as TfD would be completely useless if the ITSUSEFUL comments which nearly all TfDs attract were given any weight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, ITSUSEFUL is a perfectly valid argument to keep a template. That essay only applies to article deletions, as you would note if you carefully the very section WP:ITSUSEFUL links to. And anyhoo, how else should we be expected to reply to a nomination that begins with a classic WP:USELESS (note this is really the exact same link) argument? A good number of the delete comments echo this sentiment, so it seems both camps feel that this is in fact a valid argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I get for daring to put something in capitals. "It's useful" alone is a complete non-argument in all namespaces, and at TfD is typically the very least most credible positive argument (as any template which was evidently completely without utility would be an uncontroversial delete). Few of the keeps are accompanied by anything in the way of a rebuttal to the various deletion rationales, and as such are discountable as mere tally-marks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is , next to "unsourced" and "copyvio", our most important template. It summarizes in one word major problems that can and very often do affect the reliability of an article. I don't think it usually requires explanation--the reason is almost always all too obvious. I will certainly warn anyone who removes such a tag without dealing with what is obviously present, as do most other admins, and if anyone does so regularly & persistently, I would proceed to blocking as disruptive, as do most other admins also. Of course, I remove it if the COI though present has clearly been dealt with or is harmless, and I think others interpret that in the same way also, so it isn't misleading. Of all the current problems we have, the submission of coi articles is perhaps the most rapidly increasing, and we need more and better ways of dealing with it, not fewer. (JB Watson gives a more detailed explanation, which I endorse fully). The idea that we should fix rather than mark errors sounds attractive, but fixing errors--especially errors involving COI -- can take substantial time and research, and to pass them over because we can't immediately work on them would be one of the most unconstructive approaches to improving Wikipedia I can easily imagine: I can't think of anything which would increase the amount of COI present more drastically. Hiding problems does not solve them. It might seem nice to have an cleaner encyclopedia without tags that seem to interfere with reading, but with open editing, we need open warnings. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Echoing much already said i don't really see it as dispute tag relating to specific content issues though it is currently classified as such. Rather its use lies in highlighting a common relational issue where someone with a COI edits or creates 'their' page, the community has noticed but hasn't yet come around to adopting it as one of 'ours' to the point of breaking it down to more specific ones. That outweighs some concerns over its proper use and a lack of clarity about its removal, but where COI policies need an overhaul, this template isn't the best place to start. Nevertheless, sorry to see the nom gone.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template is used to inform readers of a common problem with new articles. They are often written by someone with a conflict of interest, and therefore potentially contain non-NPOV, promotional, or otherwise unbalanced content. If there are problems with the way some people use this tag, the solution is to educate our editors to use it properly. Deletion of this template will serve no useful purpose. Peacock (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2012 (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 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indian batsmen with a Test batting average over 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pakistani batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pakistani batsmen with ODI batting average above 40 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South African batsmen with a ODI batting average above 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South African batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sri Lankan batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:West Indian batsman with a Test batting average over 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Batsmen with a ODI batting average above 40 and Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50. Bit of discussion at WT:CRIC#Are these templates worth having on Wikipedia where everyone who commented agreed there was no benefit in doubling up like this. Jenks24 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unhelpful/redundant template confetti just clutters articles without improving navigation. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dweller e^xtra999 (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the points above and would add the difficulty of maintaining a template about averages with current players involved as the average changes every time the player bats. It is therefore unlikely that the information is always correct. There must be a site regulation about accuracy and this situation would violate it. --Brian (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both Dweller and Brian. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the redundancy. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2012 (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 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 Redirect to Template:Noble gas compounds. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Helium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two articles are linked. Not a useful navbox, per WP:NENAN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - too few articles to justify a navbox, and likely to remain that way. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Create Template:Noble gas compounds and merge content into that template. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:23, 12 March 2012 (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 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 Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox neutronium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be a fanciful creation. No such chemical element exists, as Neutronium explains. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_12#Template:Infobox_neutronium; this is probably a G4 candidate. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedily if necessary (per the linked discussion above). Previously deleted template for a nonexistent element. Robofish (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CSD G4. Imzadi 1979 → 12:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete G4 e^xtra999 (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved to user space. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:55, 12 March 2012 (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 section.