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 redundant with calm talk, of which it is actually a fork (which is not good either, as we don't want forks triggered by every stylistic disagreement) - Nabla (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calm talk with tea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see no point in this when we have Template:Calm talk. This template risks being patronising. Computerjoe's talk 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to ((calm talk)). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This was the original text of ((calm talk)) Shii (tock) 20:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to a better-worded template (with a shorter title). The link to Wikipedia:Etiquette (a behavioral guideline) is more useful than the link to Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down (an essay). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (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 attack page Shii (tock) 08:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meg White (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Besides not having any content yet, is there really a need for this? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 08:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No there isn't. Redundant and possibly a personal attack too. --JD554 (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (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. Happy‑melon 22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attribution needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant (and more generic) to ((fact)), ((weasel-inline)), and ((by whom)). It is used both when a citation is needed for a quote and when weasel words are used, so it is ambiguous. I recommend its inclusion in articles be replaced by ((fact)), although some uses are better categorized with ((weasel-inline)). Odie5533 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This template is supposed to be used where perspectives and opinions are asserted without stating whose they are. It is similar to ((by whom)) and ((weasel-inline)), but more direct and formal; there is a clear stylistic division between types of templates like ((who)), which directly addresses the reader as editor, and ((citation needed)), which identifies for the reader a problem with the text. ((fact)) is a request for verification of factual claims, while ((citequote)) is a request for a citation to verify a quote; neither uses are intended here. Skomorokh 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Skomorokh is correct that the style of this template is distinct from that of templates such as ((by whom)) and ((weasel-inline)), but their function is ultimately the same: to solicit (from readers, editors, or both) attribution for a particular statement. I personally prefer the formal/professional "attribution needed" to the informal "by whom?" and would support deprecating usage of the latter in favor of the former. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (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. Happy‑melon 22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is only used on one page and is redundant to ((cleanup)) and ((restructure)). Odie5533 (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For articles which are written as a debate, neither ((cleanup)) nor ((restructure)) can identify this . There is no advantage in replacing a specifically-targeted template with a vaguer one. Unless it is accommodated as an optional parameter of one of the above (i.e. as ((cleanup|debate=yes)) or ((restructure|type=debate))) it should be kept. Skomorokh 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Redundant"? Really? Just put it on more pages... Shii (tock) 03:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That it's not currently used on many pages doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potential to be. It seems that it would be a better fit than ((quotefarm)) for certain types of articles - I can think of various articles concerning Plamegate which could have done with this tag back in the day, for example. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not redundant per-se, because while you could use ((cleanup)) or ((restructure)) to kind-of identify that the articles has issues, this template is much more specific, and hence has a better chance of creating fruitful discussion. ((cleanup)) or ((restructure)) are to vague compare to this template. Specific templates are always preferable over generics. Also, I agree 100% with Skomorokh's proposal.--Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (neutral, leaning on delete): I'd say that what really has a better chance of starting a fruitful discussion is... to start the discussion. And that is about writing on the talk page, not (only) about using the exact right template; specially if no talk is started (because 'the template already tells it all'). Specific templates do are preferable over generic ones specially if it allows for categorisation that leads to 'call' for help from 'specialised' editors; and I guess this template calls for the same editors has others, some mentioned above, already do. Also specific templates have their own issues, we may 'waste' time just re-tagging articles (so to have the 'right' one) instead of discussing it, and we may lose more time looking for the right template to had (or make someone lose it later) - Nabla (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2009 (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.