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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox Eritrea zoba
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox Dist and Dep MU
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox Rwandan Province
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox Region of Namibia
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Nikah Mut'ah
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.
This is a non-notable form of marriage adopted by a minority of Muslims. Not notable enough, and most links are dead. Pass a Methodtalk 21:42, 12 September 2011 (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 closing and relisting at MFD. This is a userbox, albeit a large one, and should be treated as such, which means moving the venue to MFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have every reason to believe that this template is not factual. Furthermore, it attempts to claim that a Wikipedia page is factual above other pages on Wikipedia. I believe that is called POV pushing. Arlen22 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This really belongs on MfD, but as it's unused and plainly not useful as a template we can probably agree to delete it from here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:47, 12 September 2011 (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.
Template:User3-small
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.
Delete. I have done what Frietjes has asked. So now User3-small can be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2011 (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.
Template:User2 plus
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.
5 transclusions total. A less fully-featured fork of ((user1 plus)), which itself is largely unused and likely to be deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - someone finds it useful. –xenotalk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, the only actual use is by the author, as far as I can tell. The rest are just demos or uses by blocked socks. Frietjes (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2011 (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.
Keep - someone finds it useful. –xenotalk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as far as I can tell, no one is actually using this, including the original author. All the transclusions, save one, are demo pages showing all the userXX templates. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no idea what's the point in an additional e-mail link, the other links exist in many other templates. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2011 (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 ((user2)), and add an optional "sup" to ((user2)). Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - someone finds it useful. Different formatting than proffered alternative. –xenotalk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete after adding a <sup> option to ((user2)). we need fewer of these, not more with random numeric names. Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any documentation on how to transform ((user2)) to <sup> I'm assuming it's a parameter in the template?Crazynast 16:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Frietjes's implication was that somebody should add it, if this is really needed (a clue: it almost certainly isn't), rather than that it already exists. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a user of this template, I think it should be kept. The <sup> makes the useful talk, contribs, and count links less visibly obtrusive while still leaving them present for those who need them. Would support deletion if a parameter were added to ((user2)) to effect <sup>, or maybe even <small>. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count) 13:43, 19 September 2011 (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 DeleteRedirect. This template is identical to ((userv)). Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 02:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - someone finds it useful. Different formatting than proffered alternative. –xenotalk 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Used routinely all over. Removing it would cause unneeded disruption. Who cares if it's redundant. Barsoomian (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assuming that "30 tranclusions in total" is correct and "Used routinely all over" isn't. Why keep redundant entities? They clog up the system. It may not be hurting anything directly, but removing cruft is useful housekeeping. We have it on the table now so let's kill it. Herostratus (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The figure from this toolserver output was 30 at the time of nomination (it's 22 now, possibly due to uses in some doc pages having been substituted). A quick manual inspection of namespaces: four talkspace, three userspace, two user talk, six projectspace, four project talk. If it's "used all over" then it's doing a good job of hiding it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little point in having two templates that do exactly the same thing. We only need one and, as this template is only transcluded 22 times and ((user)) is transcluded 76,303 times, this is the one we should be getting rid of. The fact that this uses a pipe instead of a dot isn't reason to keep it. It's clearly not "used routinely all over" and since it's completely redundant to ((user)), replacing the 22 remaining transclusions is not disruptive at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly non-redundant since it uses a pipe instead of a dot, thereby simulating the mediawiki interface. This was created for a technical discussion in which we needed to display logs the way mediawiki does. This has since been used for that purpose on other occasions, and is necessary for that purpose, as it would be a fraud to use ((user)). The statistics offered by the prior delete opinions are irrelevant, since the template has a specific and legitimate use which only this template can satisfy, there is therefore no grounds whatsoever for deletion. Cenarium (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the output of this template is different from ((user)) and why is the pipe so essential? As far as I can see the only difference is visual and I don't understand why a dot can't be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly no need for this to exist as a separate template from ((user)) as that template has a configurable divider anyway. If there's a solid technical argument in favour of it I'm sure Cenarium won't have a problem linking us to it, because it's certainly not obvious from the (tiny) transclusion count. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix transclusions and merge the title over. With less than 30 instances of it, it won't take long at all to convert all the references and consolidate it. I'm actually somewhat surprised this is even up for discussion. Should have just been bold and consolidated the two in the first place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While this is obviously a possibility, there are so few transclusions of the template that converting all of the current uses to ((user)) will make the redirect unnecessary. We may as well delete it. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2011 (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.
Template:Currentarc
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Refspam
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.
Unnecessary and little-used talk page template. I don't believe that spammers are going to go to the talk page, see the little message, and be dissuaded from spamming our encyclopedia because of that. Basically, you're just preaching to the choir here, and as such we can dispense with it, as we have far more effective ways of dealing with spammers. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specific problems with article content should be addressed with cleanup ambox templates, not ranting tmbox templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you are lucky enough to get a spammer to the talkpage then it would be better to point them to policy on your own. Uw-spam templates could also be used in these scenarios and they are more likely to be read. Them[[User talk:Themfromspace|From]Space 16:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as misrepresenting protocolCurb Chain (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2011 (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.
Template:Crimjust
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.
A lovely sidebar, but unused. Other sidebar and footer navboxes exist that are in use, and which can be seen by looking at any of the linked articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in keeping it around if we're not using it. Besides, sidebars clutter up the tops of articles, vs. navboxes at the bottoms of articles which are much neater. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:12, 17 September 2011 (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.
Template:Missing word
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.
One does not have to be a mind reader to fix a missing word. Considering that wording is not set in stone, one can do many things, including completely rewriting the passage in question or simply eliminating it, or (heaven forbid) going back to the cited source and inferring what the missing words should be based on that. We should not be encouraging lazy editing. Half the tags we slap up on articles are unnecessary, and we need to spend more time (heaven forbid) actually fixing things than going around dropping little nag-boxes and nag-by-notes all over the place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plainly more effort than it's worth. The "essay" linked by cimanyD is really just supporting documentation, by the same author as the template. It is far-fetched to suggest that this is of general use, straw-clutching as to potential uses aside. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that because someone could easily go to the template page, see that there was no documentation, and quickly say "delete" without ever seeing the explanation for why the template exists. Dynamic|cimanyDcontact me ⁞ my edits 02:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just fixed all instances of this tag in the article namespace, so as of this writing, it is not being used in any articles. All of them were on unsourced statements to begin with, which meant that it wasn't a matter of just adding a missing word, but cutting out an incomplete statement that had no verification in the first place. Another passive-aggressive template effectively died in mainspace today. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template creator explains that it was created after noticing a problem in Southern American English and the first use of the template appears to be here. I wouldn't have had any idea what to put there either, so the argument that "one does not have to be a mind reader to fix a missing word" doesn't fly in that case. However, I would have been more tempted to use ((clarifyme)) (now just ((clarify))) to highlight the problem than ((missing word)). --AussieLegend (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, since it was attached to an unsourced statement, that would be a case where one would just simply prune out the statement and mention it on the talk page if it's that crucial. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 17 September 2011 (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.
Template:Iplain
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.
Unused template except for a couple of talk pages, and kind of pointless to keep around. The idea here is that it is more trouble to tag than to just fix the wording. Good example of tag creep here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the point of flagging individual bits of jargon where the meaning may not be trivial to work out. However, if it's not in use then it would seem to suggest that it's usually quick enough just to fix the problem and thus that we don't need a special inline template for it over and above ((huh)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not currently in use anywhere, duplicates ((Clarify)). Created by a user who is now blocked, and I'm not sure whether anyone else ever used it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2011 (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.
Template:External links-inline
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.
More tag creep. This is another instance where it takes less time and effort to just remove the offending link than to tag it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with SchuminWeb. Just remove the link and discuss it if need be. ThemFromSpace 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should work that way, but often doesn't. Inline templates are a way to identify specific problems under dispute without engaging in edit-warring over the content. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having a discussion about content, especially in this case where there is a content guideline in play. Bold, revert, discuss and all. This is just passing the buck onto someone else and nothing gets accomplished. I've seen too many instances where maintenance tags are treated as a free pass to do [fill in the blank] on an article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. How does that address anything I wrote, and how is it an argument for or against deletion? --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, this template gets in the way of people actually - heaven forbid - editing the encyclopedia rather than just dropping pointless tags all over the place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the template (and other such inline templates) is for identifying specific problems when there is an ongoing dispute. Better to tag than edit-war. Such tags don't get in the way of anything. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're instead encouraging editors to be passive-aggressive rather than bold in their edits? I don't agree with your philosophy on this. I want people to not be afraid to remove links that don't comply and then discuss their concerns if challenged. This please-don't-hurt-us attitude when it comes to editing won't go very far, unfortunately. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just providing them tools to help them identify specific problems and to settle disputes. As I point out, it's helpful to identify specific links under dispute and to prevent edit-warring over the disputed links. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need inline equivalents for every common cleanup tag. The fix here is pretty trivial (either delete the link or move it into the footnotes as a proper reference). By the time you're in the editing interface that takes no longer than adding a tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:24, 13 September 2011 (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.
As stated so well in an earlier TFD nomination about the same concept, "You see a 'peacock term', you fix it. The template just disfigures the article, is feature creep, and its existence is in conflict with our vaunted principle of 'so fix it'." The aforementioned nomination's close of "delete" actually made me consider a speedy deletion on this as G4, but enough time has gone by that it seems worth having another discussion about it. The same principle applies from the previous nomination still applies, though, in that this is something that takes less time to fix than to tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another inline template useful to identify specific problems under dispute without edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having a discussion about content, especially in this case where there is a content guideline in play. Bold, revert, discuss and all. This is just passing the buck onto someone else and nothing gets accomplished. I've seen too many instances where maintenance tags are treated as a free pass to do [fill in the blank] on an article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I've seen articles tagged with the original research tag, and then many, many users since the tagging have gone through and used that tag as a free pass to add as much original research as they wanted. Not a good thing to have happen. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ridiculous argument. An editor is not obligated to fix something he notices and tagges. He might not be able to do it also, for whatever reason. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is obligated to edit at all - what's your point? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template is analogous to Template:Weasel-inline. If you want to Tfd this then Tfd the other... Cowbert (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The fix for ((weasel-inline)) may be non-trivial, whereas the fix for ((peacock-inline)) is straightforward and semi-mechanical (delete redundant fluff and replace words which unduly praise with plainer alternatives). We don't need inline equivalents for every common cleanup tag and the documentation for this one suggests that it only exists because the author has an aversion to ambox templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful template. The statement that it is just "passing the buck onto someone else" is possibly a criticism of the way some people edit, not of the template. I use such tags to invite other editors to substantiate or clarify claims, and if nobody does so then I come back and remove the offending claims. To suggest that I shouldn't do this, because I should "fix it" immediately, completely ignores the fact that I may not know enough to tell whether a reworded version would be valid. Using this template I can invite other editors to make improvements if possible. If they do so then the end result is likely to be better than anything I could have done, and if they can't then nothing has been lost by trying. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, here's a look at the first ten transclusions:
Psalms: Some Psalms are among the best-known and best-loved passages of Scripture, with a popularity extending well beyond regular church-goers[citation needed][peacock prose]. (list follows: needs referenced. "Best-loved" probably not a peacock term if it can be sourced.)
Qatar Armed Forces: Qatar played an important[peacock prose] role in the Gulf War of 1991... (not peacock so long as importance can be sourced.)
Der Ring des Nibelungen: It is noteworthy[peacock prose] that, during the same quarter-century that Wagner composed his Ring Cycle, Alfred Lord Tennyson in Britain constructed and wrote the twelve books of his "Arthur" cycle... (remove the garbage clause.)
Synclavier: There is absolutely no doubt that the Synclavier System was "the" pioneer system in revolutionizing the movie and television sound effects and Foley effects methods of design and production starting at Glen Glenn Sound.[peacock prose] Although pricing made it inaccessible for most musicians, it found widespread use among producers and professional recording studios, competing at times in this market with such high-end production systems as the Fairlight CMI. (Delete the first sentence in its entirety as pointless grandiosity.)
Master of Business Administration: Being the third largest Economy in the World[peacock prose], Japan has many universites offering MBA programs. The quality of universities and higher education in Japan is internationally recognized.[peacock prose] (either this could be trimmed to verifiable facts, or deleted without harm.)
Gruyère (cheese): Some Greek gruyères[peacock prose] come from San Michálē (Σαν Μιχάλη, "St. Michael's") from the island of Syros in the Cyclades... (not a peacock term. At worst it's a weasel word, but it really just needs a reference.)
Stanley Fish: Likewise, among academics, Fish has endured vigorous criticism. The conservative[citation needed][peacock prose] R. V. Young writes... (either delete "conservative" as pointless, or reference it.)
Selma, California: The fruit ripened to marvelous sweetness[peacock prose] through the hot San Joaquin Valley summers. (delete "to marvellous sweetness".)
That's a representative sample of how it's being used. Half the time the editor in question would have been quicker just deleting the offending text. The rest of the time it's usually redundant to ((citation needed)). Inline templates disrupt the flow of text and should be used sparingly as required: this one hardly seems necessary in real-world examples, and smacks of micromanagement in lieu of Just Fixing It. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I totally agree. However, you seem to have missed a point I tried to make above. Your criticisms are criticisms of how many people edit, not of the template. If you got rid of the template you would not stop those people from adding unhelpful tags rather than just fixing it: they would just switch to using another unhelpful tag. Meanwhile, you would prevent people like me from using it more constructively. Do you have any reason to suppose that the people who edit in the way that you (quite rightly) criticise would, in fact, just fix it if we took that template away? If not then it would not achieve what you are putting forward as the reason for removing it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templates influence the way people edit. We tolerate ((cn)) and a limited number of other inline templates because we consider the issues in question to be sufficiently important and (importantly) non-trivial to fix that we are willing to disrupt the flow of the article text on a (hopefully) temporary basis to bug people into fixing them. Where that is not sufficiently urgent we should not have inline templates. The examples provided suggest that most uses of this template are of the micromanagement variety, and we should probably not encourage that further. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Often its not a case where "then just fix it" is so simple. The sentence the peacock term is in might not make any sense without it and it would then have to be reworded or deleted altogether. With sentence removed, the paragraph may then seem irrelevant or non-sensical. If there is a flood of peacock terms (and sometimes if there are a few, there are many), the editor could end up rewriting the entire article. The tag can be used by an editor as way to alert the author of the problem and others and involve them in the fixes, to make sure the intended meaning is preserved and no information lost in these rewrites.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2011 (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.
Template:StatcanProfiles-NWT
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.
Pair of templates that appear to lack utility, and are no longer used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2011 (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.
Template:Copyedit progress/Base
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-User
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.
Deprecated template which is no longer used. Not a suitable title for a redirect; hence, delete. Previously nominated in 2007, but since the template no longer has transclusions, those arguments no longer apply. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No issues with the deletion, and I've added the TFD tag that apparently couldn't be added earlier due to page protection. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent. A copyright holder may wish to release all rights to a work without releasing it into the public domain. I can't imagine why, though, but there may be some subtle legal reason for doing so? Dcoetzee 08:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are juristictions in which there is no legal concept of public domain. This essentially creates the same conditions without relying on an underlying legal statute. Nevertheless, long-deprecated templates which no longer appear to be attracting future use should be deleted: that's the point of deprecating them. ((PD-self)) already allows for the possibility that public domain does not exist and releases the same permissions as this template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded on that point. No reason to keep it around, and Template:PD-self covers this possibility. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:45, 13 September 2011 (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.
Template:ActiveDiscuss
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.
Sends the wrong message for a maintenance tag, which should basically promote the whole WP:BOLD concept and encourage improvement to the article. The sentiment that I took from this template was, "the article is worthless as it stands and don't bother improving it without permission from the Wikipedia gods". Not exactly a turn-on to improve the articles where it is transcluded. Rather than this tag, editors should consider using maintenance tags that actually address the concerns with the article, and thus this one should go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pure ownership in a can. Editing an article should be discouraged only in the rarest of circumstances, and this template plainly wasn't designed to cater to them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have checked a significant sample of the transclusions of this template, and have not been able to find any instances at all where this template is being used in a useful way. The template says "This article ...", but only one transclusion was on an article. Of dozens of transclusions I examined, almost every single one had been left in place for two years or more, making nonsense of "This article is currently being developed or reviewed", which the template says, and the very few exceptions I found had been left in place for at least many months. Some had been in place since 2004. I can find no evidence at all that the template is ever used as intended, i.e. as a temporary measure while discussion is in place on an article. No good reason at all for keeping it. (Incidentally, the one transclusion in an article which was there has now gone, as it was totally unhelpful, so I removed it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2011 (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.