Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 19

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:USSubway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doesn't aid in navigation in my opinion. The only designation is that they are all subways. Why would I want to jump from PATH (NY) to the Metro Red Line (LA)? This is better suited for a category rather than a template. --Hbdragon88 22:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I agree completely. RickyCourtney 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep: This one seems to exist with no major issues. And you may not want to jump between them, but others might. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: As a metrophile Wikipedian, I say keep the articles. It is good to be able to jump to other articles of similar systems. --Crashintome4196 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Latest stable release/Elecard MPEG Player (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template that seems to be used to record the latest stable release of a non-notable media player. Doesn't seem to be used even in the media player's own article. --NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - the instructions on the page even say, "go back to the main page". In other words, it's only meant to exist for one page. -Patstuart^talk|edits 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is part of a series of software templates used to segregate release dates out of the main article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Whispering 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Doubt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I found this used in one article and thought it was vandalism, then discovered it is a template. Have no idea what it's for or what it's supposed to mean, but it doesn't seem to be in any other article but this one. --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The category it's in, "Translations", hints to me that it's used in translated articles where there's a part that the translator doesn't understand. —AySz88\^-^ 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No idea how you would use this, even knowing the exact reason it would be used for. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Carcharoth, understanding that it should be aggressively kept out of articlespace. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*Strong delete per above. Possibly even a speedy. Addhoc 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for use in translations, and not in articles. Addhoc 15:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I was going through the Wikipedia:Translations process, and this template is used (or is intended to be used) by translators. See Wikipedia:Translation/ **/How-to. Carcharoth 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - please click the link provided above (edit, links, history, etc). The 'links' link in particular will tell you what the template is used for, though admittedly the template creator should have provided some documentation. But still, it looks like the two editors above haven't even tried to find out what the template is for. Why have they voted delete? Well, one has now changed to keep, so I'll stop being grumpy! :-) Carcharoth 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• And the other one has also. I've added some guidance notes. Thanks for your advice. Addhoc 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - This is essential for translators. --Lord Gravitron ^{Message | Contrib} 15:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well now that it's out of Sennacherib where it didn't belong, I guess I will withdraw my nom! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- nae'blis 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to a page with "notes" about a page. That's what talk pages are for; we don't need to confuse the matter by adding another layer. (Radiant) 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't understand, why would this be useful? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what the...? Patstuart^talk|edits 04:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - However this was created by John Reid, so possibly there is a good, if very complex, reason for this. Willing to change my 'vote' only if explanation offered in very simple English. Addhoc 17:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I suspect this is meant to do something like document the usage of the template. The current way a template talk page is set up with documentation in one part of the page and disucssion on the other part, and sometimes with documentation on the front page, is confusing, to say the least. Putting documentation on a subpage would make sense, but this would need more disucssion. Carcharoth 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Unnecessary -SUIT 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not really unnecessary and also per Addhoc. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Silly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A template that's supposed to be put on talk pages of users inserting jokes into Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I find it rather offensive, both by it's name and the message header. As I explained on Template talk:Silly, we're supposed to hold higher standards that the people who are vandalising our site. Even if they are idiots, calling them names is still a violation WP:NPA. Миша13 12:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Миша13 12:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as creator of the template. This template is meant to be used as a second level warning, after someone who is 'playing around' with Wikipedia has been warned with one of the friendlier templates such as Behave and is continuing to make joke articles or edits. It does not call people idiots, it says their behaviour is silly. There's a big difference between those two. The alternative to this would probably be Test2- this is much more informative and positive than that one. StoptheDatabaseState 12:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Please don't be silly" - this phrase alone suggests that the person given the warning is silly. "Silliness doesn't help" can also be read as the receiver's silliness, not his/her actions, as you suggest. Finally, the template is often being used without substitution. If someone were to edit their talk page and find the text {{Silly}} inside they'd have all the right to feel insulted. In short, this template has a big potential of being found offensive by the person receiving it, which is not acceptable. Миша13 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Whatever, author-delete then. Personally I think "don't be silly" is nothing like "you're an idiot", but if you find it offensive then perhaps it is offensive. It's a bit of a half-way house between a welcome template and a warning template anyway. Perhaps when I can be bothered I'll cannibalise the uncontentious parts of it (i.e. the pictorial links to helpful pages) into a nice welcome template. One lives and learns, in Wiki as in life. StoptheDatabaseState 13:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - actually I am the creator of this template! - and whatever you think, I think it serves as a friendly and helpful template by bringing in a link to useful parts of the Wiki that newcomers might not be familiar with. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• TfD isn't cleanup. Just rewrite it so it doesn't call people names... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite if necessary. I'm not sure I see the close connection between "don't be silly" and disparaging the user's intelligence that Misza13 does; any template can be misused for non-intended purposes, it doesn't mean they should be deleted because of that. -- nae'blis 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; it's a nicer first warning than {{Test}}. I don't see it as calling anyone names -- it says their edit was silly, not that they are. --Russ (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good fun and effective. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rephrase LEAD This template may be used mistakenly in which case it falls foul of WP:BITE. But it looks more friendly then the current warning. frummer 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - salvageable. Addhoc 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is very useful for warning users about joke edits. It also serves to welcome users to Wikipedia, where test1 and bv simply tell them what not to do. —ptk✰fgs 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per fgs. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ptkfgs †he Bread 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see any name calling here. It's only the edits that are referred to as "silly", and since we're talking about joke edits, this is not inappropriate. 'sides, even if it was different, it'd be better to change the template rather than deleting it. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is ideal at the right time and place, and is a useful part of the array of warnings. Mr Stephen 21:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, could be useful. —Kenyon (t·c) 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. To me, this isn't about "name calling" or (in)sensitivity. This is about a template with limited uses and a bad message. Welcoming someone or recommending they create account are noble message fit for sustitutable templates. "Template:Silly", however, is an insult. No, not in the way other users think. This template itself is a silly little insult to legitamate vandalism warnings and user greetings. It's written in unprofessional tone, overly long and filled with unnecessary images. I don't care how many people use it or want it kept, either. This is not "salveage". It's not a vehicle, or even a piece of metal. This is waste template. It repeatedly refers to "mess(ing) about" and does outright mention "block or ban". (Without linking to the actual imformation regarding such actions.) If I were a new user or troll, I'd either stratch my head or laugh at this. Really, how are people supposed to take Wikipedia seriously when we put this on user pages? The problem is not it's first sentence or even its wording. It's an inherently childish attempt to make a casual statement. Normally, there's nothing wrong with trying to speak civilly and casually with a new user on their talk page. However, when you put such a message in a template and try to pass it off as something, official and generally useful, you're going too far. I personally find template:test far too soft and sugary. test0 and verror are even worse. Still, that's just assuming good faith. "Silly" makes no real attempt to do that, but instead tries to reason with, or perhaps even talk down to, pontential vandals.

In short: it's not something we need in a template, and would require a full rewrite to fully improve. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Ace Class Shadow. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- nae'blis 05:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane number storms by month (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Incomplete and not properly formatted. It's only used in one article, and even then it doesn't add much to the article. Hasn't been edited in months until today, and is quite simply not worth keeping around. – Chacor 12:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's only used in a single article, should just be a table within that page. Straightforward to copy/paste to List of notable Atlantic hurricanes? --DeLarge 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, personally I don't think this data is even worthy of inclusion in the article; a straight delete of this table seems fine to me. If it was in the article as a table I'd remove it. Nevermind the poor formatting and inappropriate use of template space...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Subst and delete, although this may be more suitable for Atlantic hurricane. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NRV. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not complete and looks too fancy. RaNdOm26 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Subst and delete - let the people watching the article decide to remove it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 04:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Subst and delete per Patstuart. Addhoc 18:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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 debate was kept per withdrawl of nomination -- nae'blis 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Current-ScoutingCOTM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• KeepDelete WP:ASR Rlevse 11:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)...keep as I know where they go now-;)! Rlevse 21:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep By stating that a specific article is the current collaboration subject, we are also implying that the content of the article will be updated frequently while the collaboration is in effect. In that sense, it is the same as {{current}}. Slambo (Speak) 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Put it on talkpages, but keep. Collaboration templates are inappropriate for mainspace. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I have moved the only articlespace entry to talk page. Rlevse just found out these were supposed to go on talk pages, and may come and withdraw these soon. -- nae'blis 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 08:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Armenian capitals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete Template is distruptive and axactly will create edit-rv wars, in related articles. There is one capital for one country, to add other countries's cities as capitals of Armenia is a Strong nationalist approach. Must^TC 11:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how this template is "disruptive" and how it will create POV wars. The way I see it, the fact that these cities were indeed former Armenian capitals is an undisputed fact. -- Clevelander 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are non-truthful. You are catched by yourself.

Okay...what? -- Clevelander 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here; the first header of template(You created it)The 12 capitals of Armenia and that version included Yerevan.

That is correct. I based this template completely off of one from Russian Wikipedia. See here. -- Clevelander 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Now; There are two possibilities;1-You are Liar; since you stated that this template aims to give info about ancient history, 2-Yerevan is a former capital of Armenia.

Wait, how is that second one a possibility again? Sounds more like a statement to me. Also, I am not a "liar" as I never specifically stated that this template aims to give info about ancient history. I stated that its creation was for historical reference and it originally included Yerevan because I directly copied it from the Russian Wikipedian template I presented above and at the time I did so had little time to make any serious changes. I now see my error and I propose that we rename this template to "Historic capitals of Armenia". -- Clevelander 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note; the name of Template is Armenian Capitals not ancient capitals not former capitals -- 81.213.210.119 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I've stated this, but again, I think we should keep it and rename it to "Historic capitals of Armenia." Regards, Clevelander 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - this seems to be part of a larger tendency to create a huge lot of new navbox templates, many of which tend to create additional NPOV problems. Especially in Middle-East and Central-Asia related domains, I've observed a trend for "national" templates to be created and to be perceived by POV-warring groups of editors as attempts at "laying claim" to some article on behalf of some nation, leading to conflicts of "staking out turf". While this overall trend is troublesome, I don't think this particular template is among the worst. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually this template wasn't created with the goal to starting NPOV problems. It was actually inspired by a similar one on Russian Wikipedia. See here. -- Clevelander 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is hard not to agree with your observations, that kind of "staking out turf" attitude is mostly generated towards Turkey's borders for historical, political and emotional reasons. And although this one may not be the worst, something should be done for a start.--Doktor Gonzo 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you missed the subtlety in my argument... ;-) I didn't say "staking out turf", I said "perceived by POV-warriors" as staking-out turf. It's the kind of conflict where it takes two to tango, and we have very similar conflicts the other way round too, and probably worse (Template:Turkic-speaking comes to mind.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what you meant and was speaking wikipedia-wise. Or maybe I didn't understand, did you understand what I meant? ;) It may take 2 to tango but just 1 to breakdance, write that down!--Doktor Gonzo 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a template for Strong nationalist aims. not for giving information to people--Trichnosis 12:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the "strong nationalistic aims" of this template. -- Clevelander 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This template wreaks of irredentist concepts.. "Armenian capitals"? There is only one country Armenia as defined by intl law. Tagging other cities in other countries is simply misguided. The history of these cities are talked about in the main and History of Armenia also includes references to them. So what is the point of the template except WP:POINT? Is there a template "Capitals of Turks"? or "Capitals of Germania"? Baristarim 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It looks like that this article has no purpose at all. Capitals can be given (and indeed are given) in an article of History of Armenia, along with the names of the states. There is no need to include such a template. Thanks Caglarkoca 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Change it to Ancient Armenian Capitals or Ancient Armenian cities or something. Armenian capitals can be misguiding.--Doktor Gonzo 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would not object a list of Ancient Armenian States, just like the List of Turkic states and empires. (It is pitty that there is debate for the deletion of this page though) Capitals can be given by the names of the states and it will be a useful directory page. Caglarkoca 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Who defines the Armenian people, past the country itself? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? -- Clevelander 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the UN maps that define Armenia in any case.Baristarim 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I don't understand why all the Turks are voting to delete. All those cities were at once capitals of Armenia right? I sure as hell hope none of you are disputing that. So what's wrong with a template? There is already a ctegory listing btw that has been around for a year, so why not a template? --Eupator 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How did it occur to you that calling people who disagree Turks would help your case? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 4 out 5 votes to Delete are Turkish. Is calling someone a Turk an insult now?--Eupator 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe because it did before--Doktor Gonzo 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Such low self esteem!--Eupator 20:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Do not make this personal. I can also say that nearly all of the keep, and particularly "strong keep", votes are from Armenians. Do not go in that territory by implying that there is some sort of gang at work. It is very unencyclopedic. Capitals of Armenia? Capitals of Armenians, maybe.. This template is riddled with pan-Armenian irredentist concepts. Can I create a template "Capitals of Slavs"? or "Capitals of Germania" and tag them all over the place? Would you support the inclusion of a "template:Capitals of Turks" tag to tens of cities across Eurasia? How irredentist is that?Baristarim 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike many crufty templates created nowadays, this one is useful and does not duplicate categorization. Should be renamed "Historical Armenian capitals", however. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, it does duplicate categorization, just as Eupator pointed out above: Category:Former capitals of Armenia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep and rename. I did not create this template to offend the Turkish people or to push any sort of "strong nationalistic Armenian aim". I created it for historical reference only. I think that the core issue here is not the template itself, but rather its name which could have been misinterpreted. So, I propose that we not only keep this template but rename it to "Historic capitals of Armenia." That's fair isn't it? -- Clevelander 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Following comments are putted here by me, transferred-half deleted-divided by Clevelander, and now I am putting my comments here again.Sorry.Must^TC 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is true, I removed your comments, restored the anon's comments, then moved your comments pertaining to my private discussion with Francis over to Francis' talk page. Just now I also removed your re-quote of the anon's comments (so as not to confuse the reader) as well as your transcription of my message to Francis (as the reader can see that clearly in the link). I apologize if I violated any rules and I accept full responsibility for my actions. -- Clevelander 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Clevelander, I am (ofcourse all contributors here) ready to assume good faith.But please follow these. You had logged in with your IP and remove some comments from here(with a rv-summary as Rv anon vandalism. Where is vandalism here. Good points about template and the idea behind it.

I'll admit I was wrong in removing the anon's comments (I thought they were just spam but later found out that this wasn't the case). I responded to his arguments above. -- Clevelander 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• You posted a message to here. What is the idea motivated you to close this TfD, how you decide no concensus, how you impose an idea on behalf of all users contribute here. All of them is a good faith or what? RegardsMust^TC 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't impose any idea on anybody. I just suggested to Francis that he close this on no concensus as it seemed to be going nowhere. Ultimately, it would be his decision whether to close it or not. He later responded to me and said that he will not close the TfD on no concensus yet. He says he will wait until Saturday to do so, if no reasonable solution is agreed upon. Again, my position is for the template to remain but to rename it to "historic capitals of Armenia" as opposed to just "Armenian capitals." That way, it shall be a victory for both Armenian and Turkish users. (BTW, I already renamed the template) -- Clevelander 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the term "capital" have any meaning in a medieval context? Also, no single settlement was ever the "capital" of all of Armenia, so does the template have validity? Meowy 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think there should be anthing offensive to the Turks about this template. I think this template is very informative and useful and should not be deleted. Maybe the name might be little offensive than it should be changed to "Historic capitals of Armenia". ROOB323 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of what? This creates a huge confusion for uninformed readers who are likely to confuse the country Armenia as defined by intl law, and many historical theories. The mains of the article include their history.

It will create confusion among readers only if the template is not explicity called "former capitals of Armenia" which is what my keep-and-rename proposal calls for. -- Clevelander 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If this isn't pan-X-ism, I don't know what is.Baristarim 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that a template about a country's former capitals is a form of irredentism? -- Clevelander 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Can I create a template "Capitals of Turks" and paste it over it tens of cities in Eurasia? If I ever did that, the insults of pan-Turkism would start blowing in a second. Same for "template: capitals of Germans" or "Capitals of Slavic Europe". There is no need for such template except WP:POINT. The Armenian heritage of those cities in question are extensively dealt with in the main. Besides, this would be very confusing for the uninformed reader since Armenia is also a sovereign state and a member of UN as defined by international law. I am also against any template like "capitals of Turks" or anything similar. The history sections of these articles in question are adequate to cover the subject matter in question. Baristarim 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is kind of funny to see that most of the people that said it should this template should be "deleted" because it offends the Turks, but on the List of Turkic states and empires everyone of you said that the articel should be kept. Can someone explain to me why is that? ROOB323 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Slavic Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Arab world and etc articles also exist. This is not the same thing. This template is "Armenian capitals". What is that supposed to mean? If there were ever a template "Capitals of Turkey" or "Capitals of Turks" that was created to tag cities thousands of km from Turkey just because they were the capital of a 13th century Turkic princedom, I would vote delete for that as well..Baristarim 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this proposal seems like trolling, "There is one capital for one country" at a time. --An account 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

? I am not quite sure that I am following you. Baristarim 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I propose renaming it with Ancient Armenian States and their Capitals. (Or an equivelant, but better organised one.) Only the name Armenian capitals is not useful at all. Caglarkoca 01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• To Clevelander; Dear Clevelander please dont divide/delete/transfer my following comments, again and again.Keep as a whole.

Er, I don't exactly follow you. -- Clevelander 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• To other users; Please note the change in Template name, who decide to rename, where is the consensus.

Yes, but it needed to be renamed otherwise, this dispute would go on forever. My decision to make this move reflects the best interests of both Turkish and Armenian users. I want to push for unity, not disunity among both of our groups (which seems to be something you're pushing for as opposed to other Turkish users such as Baristarim who have expressed a willingness to work constructively with Armenian users). -- Clevelander 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• To admins;I am opened a TfD, for Template:Armenian Capitals, not for Template:Historic capitals of Armenia, is it alloved to change template when TfD in process?Must^TC 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Armenian Capitals has been renamed Template:Historic capitals of Armenia, thus it is automatically the successor to that earlier template. -- Clevelander 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Following comments are putted here by me, transferred-half deleted-divided by Clevelander, and now I am putting my comments here again.Sorry.Must^TC 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Clevelander, I am (ofcourse all contributors here) ready to assume good faith.But please follow these;
    • You had logged in with your IP and remove some comments from here(with a rv-summary as Rv anon vandalism. Here that comments again;

      • You are non-truthful. You are catched by yourself. Here; the first header of template(You created it)The 12 capitals of Armenia and that version included Yerevan. Now; There are two possibilities;

        1-You are Liar; since you stated that this template aims to give info about ancient history,

        2-Yerevan is a former capital of Armenia.

        Please note; the name of Template is Armenian Capitals not ancient capitals not former capitals.

        81.213.210.119 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Dear Clevelander, where is vandalism here. Good points about template and the idea behind it.
    • You posted a message to here;

      • Francis, could you close this on the basis on no concensus. ****::It doesn't seem to be going anywhere (most of the votes in favor of deleting it are from Turkish users while most in favor of keeping it are Armenian users). The easiest solution, in my opinion would be to rename the template to "Historic capitals of Armenia." Best,

        Clevelander 12:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    • What is the idea motivated you to close this TfD, how you decide no concensus, how you impose an idea on behalf of all users contribute here.
    • All of them is a good faith or what?
    • RegardsMust^TC 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You posted the exact same comments above and I have replied to them. Instead of responding you have decided to repeat your earlier post. -- Clevelander 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

MustTC whats the point of you repeating tha same thing over and over and confusing everyone. ROOB323 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you voted to delete this template. -- Clevelander 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Mustafa Akalp. The template is troublesome. This will lead other nationalistic pov templates. Better to delete them all. E104421 14:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Are they historical Armenian capitals or not? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree. As far as I know, historical states which contemporary historians would identify as "Armenia" did have these cities for their "administrative headquarters" (capital city). This nomination in itself is POV-pushing. //Dirak 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep No reason for deletion. History, simply, can't be rewritten... Hectorian 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What history? The articles in question talk in extensive detail about their history. Please do not emotionalize the issue. This template, as it stands, is confusing and semi-political. "Armenian capitals?" Should I create a "Capitals of Slavs" template and paste it all over Wikipedia? Can't you see the inherent irredentism in this? Istanbul, for example, is categorized under Ancient Greek Cities, but there is no template like "Greek Capitals" or "Capitals of Germania". This template is confusing and, simply, irredentist. Armenian capitals or capitals of Armenia? What kind of a template is that? There are no templates like "capitals of arabia" or "capitals of austro-hungary" or "hungarian capitals".Baristarim 00:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ABSURD! Austro-Hungaria did not have 12 capitals in its history !!!! Armenia did. The notability of the template is based on the number of capitals. Name another NATION (Slavs, Turkics and Germanics are not NATIONS) that had this many capitals of their state?--Eupator 02:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people have also considered for a long time that Slavs, Germans and Turks were one nation as well. It didn't turn out too nice either u know. 4th century "Armenians" are not the same as Armenians of today. Greeks also had many capitals, should I create a "Capitals of Greeks" template and paste it all over? Since with your logic even the 13th century BC Greeks can be categorized with ease with today's Greeks. I am not against the use of the national adjective per se, that's why I mentioned the "Ancient Greek cities" cat example. It addresses the issues satisfactorily. There is no such thing as "Turkics".. Please see Turks. If you wish you can see the site of the Royal Academy of Arts exhibition titled "Turks: The Journey of a thousand years: 600-1600" [1] to make sure that the word "Turkics" do not exist. There are Turkic peoples and Turkish people, "Turkics" doesn't exist. The correct noun is "Turks", and there are the Turkish citizens who are citizens of Turkey. Do not confuse notions because you have considered Turks as "nomadic savages" (your words in Talk:Armenia) Nation concept didn't exist before the French Revolution either, there were only ethnic and religious groups.Baristarim 02:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Turks, Slavs and Germans considered the same nation? By whom? The Turkic Santa Claus? I see no reasonable count argument provided by you, just irrelevant rhetoric. Stick to the topic. Oh and speakers of Turkic languages are Turkics not Turks (regardless if they are at their nomadic barbarian state or settled mimicking settled civilized Iranians state), Turks are citizens of Turkey, that's it.--Eupator 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pfff Baris, so the modern Greeks should not be categorised with the Greeks of the 13th century, nor the today Armenians with the Armenians of the 4th century? Seems funny, cause u are talking about all the Turkic peoples as Turks + as continuation for more than a millenium... Not even the appearance of modern Turks match with the one of the Proto-Turks!(we are talking about two distinct races!). the Armenians and the Greeks however, kept their language, culture and appearance (to a great extend) throughout history (at least the Greeks, have also kept lots of their ancient pagan cults!). the term Turkish people does only refer to the citizens of Turkey... if it was, the Turks of Germany have nothing to do in that article's infobox... Not to mention that Kurds, citizens of Turkey, are not ethnically Turkish... As for this template, it is legitimate enough to exist. there are other such templates as well: Template:US capital, Template:Capitals of Bulgaria, but i did not see the users from FYROM proposing the later for deletion, on the grounds of any "irrendistic claims"... As i've said above, it is about history, and deleting it is simply POV-pushing. and, btw, a template for Greek capitals, would also be possible; although it would be rather big, including capitals from Mycenae till Nafplio and Athens... Hectorian 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to delete it they are indeed former Armenian capitals its history its encyclopedic it should be a keeper. The majority of the delete are turks sadly thats nothing new but this really does nothing to harm them. Nareklm 13:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (now that already renamed) Nice, factual and informative. I'd also like to be able to see their locations on a map. NikoSilver 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have the "Greek quartet" votes, the same vote, as should be expected. I should propose to admins they count your votes as one.--Doktor Gonzo 22:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And I would suggest that you have a sound argumentation when making an XfD. NikoSilver 22:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder how much sound it must be to affect your vote.--Doktor Gonzo 08:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• (Keep) - I am not really sure, but I think I favour a weak keep. The template is kind of strange and unique, but I see no reason for deleting it. @ Baristarim: again, Germanic peoples, Iranic peoples, Turkic peoples, Altaic peoples, Indo-Iranian peoples, Slavic peoples, etc are NOT nations, they are language families. Tājik 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Clevelander Ldingley 20:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and rename. Hakob 00:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just the way it is. frummer 07:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At the moment it simply says "Historic capitals of Armenia" which looks neutral. I'd never heard about more than two, so I found it rather useful. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres a exhibition thats going to open soon. "Armenia's 12 Capital Cities" Exhibition Opened in Paris Nareklm 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 08:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:WPMILHIST Collaboration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete WP:ASR --Shywun 09:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep By stating that a specific article is the current collaboration subject, we are also implying that the content of the article will be updated frequently while the collaboration is in effect. In that sense, it is the same as {{current}}. Slambo (Speak) 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a standard collaboration template, similar to the dozens in use; it's also no more a self-reference than the variety of other banners occasionally found at the top of articles. Kirill Lokshin 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Put it on talkpages, inappropriate for mainspace. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; I moved the only articlespace instance to talk page; can we close this now, Shywun? -- nae'blis 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Addhoc 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kirill Lokshin. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 08:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Current-ScoutingSATM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete WP:ASR --Shywun 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Put it on talkpages, inappropriate for mainspace. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, only articlespace instance now moved to talk page. Seems to be a standard collaboration message, just put in the wrong place. -- nae'blis 19:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, yes, the Scouting project won't use them in the wrong spot anymore.Rlevse 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep all. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 08:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Long (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Verylong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Intro length (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:LEAD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These templates address metadata (information about the article, not the content). That topic (about the style of the article) belongs on the talk page but these templates are only useful for creating a category which can be browsed (see Category:Articles that are too long which is monitored for backlogs). Currently, it is not a practise to place maintenance tags on the talk page, except in to-do lists. If placed on the talk page, the templates will be forgotten or archived creating false positive backlog numbers. ·maclean 04:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Many, many cleanup templates exist, and they're not inappropriate, for the reasons you state against putting them on talk pages. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as I've tagged an article with Template:Verylong; see British Caledonian which is 202.9kB as I write this -- the biggest non-list article on WP? I don't think the template would serve as useful a purpose on the talk page. --DeLarge 10:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Amarkov. Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; this is a useful cleanup flag. -- Beland 16:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it addresses a problem in the article as much as {{sections}} or any other cleanup template. When I pull up a 100KB article, my eyes start to glaze over, and I'm not sure that it's not appropriate to have it that long. This way, it informs the reader of the problems, as well as the writers of the article, just like the other templates. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• These templates ask the user (editor or not) at a very popular position to split the article. It is mentioned how to do it, but currently there isn't a notice on how to do it correctly (read: follow the rules of the GFDL). Fix that issue or delete this misleading templates. --32X 20:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Deleting it and its redirected links do not make sense. They are very useful when there are long articles such as Wheel of Fortune (US game show). --Gh87 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong deleteaccording to maclean above Mak82hyd 22:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Useful and effective for clean up tasks. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, when an article needs to be cleaned up, then it needs to be cleaned up. Wikipedia will never reach a closing date, scientific understanding isn't stagnant and we keep on making new finds, so too about history and every other encyclopedic entry. "Native editors" don't always like tags, and sometimes articles are wrongly tagged or overloaded with tags, but those issues have to dealt with separately. frummer 04:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

comment somehow "template:lead" fell into this nom, not sure if it was intentional but it has its own category, which is Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup.

• Keep Useful template. Beit Or 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Don't understand why editors waste their time nominating templates that function reasonably well. Addhoc 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Useful template. 1ne 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful template. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very useful. Just H 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Submiter doesn't even seem sure of his reasoning, Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reasoning: the templates are metadata which is what talk pages were invented for. Talk pages are not well maintained so the templates will just get archived or ignored (even after the article is shortened). I asked the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Article length templates about this and figured it would be best to first see if there is a will to keep them. Obviously there is. No harm done, I hope. I guess someone has to periodically to remind us that the encyclopedia articles are meant for readers, not editors: Wikipedia:Keep Wikipedia-related metadata out of articles. The readers are concerned about content, the editors about style and guidelines. ·maclean 07:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above, it is very useful. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 00:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If there is a legitimate reason to shorten the article, then that should be discussed. If a browser has a problem with length, then on EDIT a warning should be issued for that browser. X number of kilobits is too much of a blanket statement that every article should have to conform to; some articles simply need to be long than others. --Supercoop 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason why it is too long is typically obvious and, as with any cleanup template, this template is used in conjunction with an explanation on the talk page if necessary. There should not be loading problems with an article for someone on a high-speed connection and a new computer, let alone people who are on dial-up or have slower computers. —Centrx→talk • 01:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This template doesn't belong to the article - at best it belongs the talk page. Wikiolap 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Supercoop †he Bread 01:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. -- RattleMan 05:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep in fact, the template should be made bolder for those who might overlook it. Some articles are getting ridiculously long. Ryecatcher773 06:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How does the template solve the problem of articles that are too long? maclean 19:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't relate to anything the article might talk about. Better suited for talk page. iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Unless if it belongs on the talk page? It's not very clear on it's specification. Actually, more specifically, I saw it on the Windows Vista page. iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 07:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• strong use on talkpages only, directed at editors, not readers. dab (𒁳) 10:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Readers can be editors. That's what a wiki encyclopedia is. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly useless. If you think an article needs splitting up, be bold and split it yourself, don't litter the wiki with tags left for someone else hoping they will do what you're too lazy to do yourself. Also, remember that wiki is not paper so it's hardly a problem. Dan100 (Talk) 10:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Be bold and do it yourself" is a reasoning that would apply to any of the many, useful, categorizing cleanup templates. Even if someone has time to do it himself, he may have no special knowledge of the subject, whereas someone who is familiar with the subject and the article is better able to do the split. It is a problem if an article is so long that freezes a reader's computer for a minute, and very long articles typically have organizational problems as well. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think anybody is arguing that the articles should be longer, but rather that placing a template in the middle of an article with a clever observation that the article is long is not helping the situation. ·maclean 19:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for the LEAD/Intro tags. At the time of writing, Outlaw country has a 7-paragraph intro versus a 5-paragraph article. Keep for Long/Verylong tags —Twas Now 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Srong EmperorKeep Important stuff for messy articles.-- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia|wanna Talk? 04:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep however, it should be accompanied by a description of what the editor thinks could possibly be done to make it shorter and an invitation to discuss on the talk page. i don't agree with the idea that whoever thinks it is long should do it themselves- if they don't know a lot about the subject they might make the problem worse. it shouldn't be placed on articles willy-nilly without valid reason, but it should exist in order to notify people that this is something that needs to be talked about.Acornwithwings 21:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But doesn't placing the template in the page and creating a section on the talk page amount to the same thing? Why not simply use one notice (preferably the talk page one), and leave messages out of the article? ·maclean 09:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily- people sometimes ignore stuff that's brought up on the talk page if they don't want to deal with it. i think templates should be used for things where someone other than the person with the concern might be more qualified to make the changes. if a template amounted to the same thing as a section on the talk page, then why have templates? Acornwithwings 19:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Useful template Hohohob 23:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As per above, those templates are useful when the articles or talk pages are too big to edit on some browser. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I do think there shoudl be a consensus on which should be used at a particular point, but until then these aren't too troubling. --Wizardman 04:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Patstuart. --Emc² (contact me) 15:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Wizardman. -WarthogDemon 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've used this myself from time to time. What else is one to do when they find an article which needs this kind of cleanup? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- It's useful for cleanup purposes and such--SUIT 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't believe something so silly is going to be kept. Everyone does understand that this message automatically comes up to editors? -- Ned Scott 04:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. Never assume anyone is smart enough to see and correct an "obvious problem" if it's been left unfixed. Besides, sectioning should be left to those more familiar with the subject, which is rarely, if ever, the template applier. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Incredibly ironically, you just explained to me why I should say to delete. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pages do not become long without many people working on them, and those people know how long it is. So what's the point? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment — "Pages do not become long without many people working on them, and those people know how long it is." The one and only time I've used this template was on the British Caledonian article, which is currently 221.4kB. Before the latest edits began in early November the page was 4.9kB. Looking at the page history, aside from a couple of very brief formatting tidies by myself and other editors, it looks to be almost entirely the work of one person using two IPs, 193.82.99.205 and 213.210.36.140, and that person seems to be uninterested in many pages except this one and those which link directly to it. All that time, all those edits (he/she doesn't use the 'preview' button as far as I can see), all those times that size warning must have popped up, and it still ballooned to >220kB.

The article didn't have sources either before I tagged the page, but the editor reacted quickly to fix that. I'm hoping that in due course he'll get round to splitting it as well - the depth in the article puts me off attempting to break it up into chunks, and I have 4,000+ edits' experience behind me. If he does, he'll have reacted to my tag, not the built-in alert. --DeLarge 11:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Modify: Some articles must be long in order to convey the information. Perhaps the setting where the “Long” notation is triggered should be raised. Also the note that some browsers can’t handle the long article is silly, most reasonably well written browsers created in the last 10 years (except for cellphone browsers) should be able to handle it without problem. Bdelisle 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cleanuptagcruft that wouldn't be helpful to readers. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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