Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 29

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. Sr13 is almost Singularity 06:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NZ primary school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, was single use; that article now converted, and the template redundant, to {{Infobox school}}. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. eDenE 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Kkrouni 00:04, 31 July 2007 (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 delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:The 25th Annual (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template doesn't actually do anything that the main article itself doesn't do. It's just a rehash of all of the links in the article.. —  MusicMaker5376 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It would be a bad precedent to allow big, redundant space-consuming templates like this one to be added for particular musical theatre articles. We already have an infobox for each article and templates for certain composer or writing teams. Also, each article give all this information in narrative form. This is yet another redundant structure that an editor added to the bottom of the article and adds nothing to the article. -- Ssilvers 09:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It was probably created as a navigation box, but it is very pointless due to lack of related articles. eDenE 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant template clog. Even if all the items listed on the template required articles, which they don't, it would still be a rehash. Crystallina 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, this template adds nothing to the article that is not already included (or is easily found in the existing links). JeanColumbia 08:57, 2 August 2007 (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 delete. IronGargoyle 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

What exactly is a "current album"? It appears that numerous releases from last year are still "current albums". While I am fine with having a tag to show that an album is yet to be released I can't see the point in noting that an album is new. There's no definition of "current" either - is it something still in the charts? Far too many albums come and go to be able to keep track of all of them in every chart, including reissues and reappearances. Even properly maintained I doubt this would be of any use. The related category has been deleted through CfD twice. violet/riga (t) 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah current means the album is still on the charts. --- Realest4Life 16:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We could replace it with something like "This album is currently on one or more album charts," but albums are released, they get into the charts, and come back every so often, so you would have to keep putting the template onto a page and taking it off again.

--Andrew ^t _c 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Current album basically means an album that the artist and label are still promoting, and releasing singles off that LP.Bigga123 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would "recently released" be better terminology, then? Gracenotes^T § 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments. I'm not sure how to take them as regards keeping or deleting the template though. violet/riga (t) 10:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the corresponding category was deleted (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 22#Category:Current albums) as too vague and difficult to maintain. Frankly, I could see a {{current music-related}}, similar to {{current sport-related}}, for actual in-the-news, subject-to-frequent-change music-related articles (including newly released albums) but I'm a little dubious about this one in its current state. Xtifr _tälk 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So far as I've seen, current means that the album is still on the charts or singles are still being released from that album, so the information there is likely to change as more becomes available. 17Drew 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are 20+ current templates. Some of them may be useful, but none of them are highly useful or informative. eDenE 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

-Yeah 'current' means that the label and artist are still releasing singles, and until they release the final single, and it gets off the charts then the album will have been fully-released and promoted. Ivanescence 21:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is one of the silliest tags I've ever seen. It adds nothing of significance that couldn't be included in the first sentence of the album. This helps people who have nothing important to add to Wikipedia to feel like they've participated. Unschool 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's a very simple tag, but provides a very quick reference to indicate the status of an album. As to whether the album is in the charts or not isn't really the matter. It basically indicates albums that are, yes charting, but also recipients of reviews, awards and still being the album from which an artist is releasing singles. It's a matter of common sense of proximity, but that common sense is best moitored by the page's editors, since they're likely to know when an album ceases being "current" (whether it be by being superceded by a new work or simple by a matter of proximity from its release). Comment: Unschool, I need to comment that your response, though helpful in your definition of why the template should be deletd (whether I agree or not), your comments relating to the "smaller editors" could be construed as being a bit too harsh. --linca^linca 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm baffled. I haven't labeled anyone a "smaller editor", and yet I'm being harsh? Unschool 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Yes it can be helpful for identifying if an album is still active on the charts but there is really no definitive end date for when an album is no longer active on the charts. You can tell by an album article infobox when it was released and how high the album got further down the article. Maybe it can be turned into a section template for use in the "Chart Performance" section or the like highlighting that while the album is still current in the charts, the positions may be subject to change. Overall, it's just more clutter for Wikipedia. --Lakeyboy 06:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as its use is limitless and the deadline for that too ambiguous. - Cyrus XIII 14:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-Because it is not always clear as to what 'Current Albums' actually are. It just clutters up articles on albums and adds nothing significant that cant be found out from the article itself. --The-G-Unit-Boss 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as it is ambiguous and could make work more tedious for editors to keep articles updated, seeing as there's thousands of albums being released every year. We'll always end up arguing as to when the tag can actually be removed from an article. aJCfreak yAk 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a book or movie, where the plot summary etc. sections will change significantly within the first week or so of its release. Unless there is a complex subplot (e.g. the various "hip-hop operas") there's only so much that can be written about an album during its initial popularity. By all means use Template:Future album or whatever to tag unreleased albums with only skeleton information, but the charts are too unpredictable to be worth noting with a template. Garrett^Talk 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but with a modification, only so long as the album remains on the Top 100 of the Billboard charts. If there is one for current single, and it is not up for deletion, this shouldn't be either. --AEMoreira042281 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment for AEMoreira042281: Tndicating only to be used with Billboard doesn't represent a global point of view, however I agree that it should be specific in that respect, such as attaining a high charting position in a place or country of prominence. For instance, Dream Days at the Hotel Existence hasn't entered the US charts and by your ruling would never be a current album, as it's likely to never enter the charts there, however the album was #1 in Australia in its week of release. Just a suggestion. Another Comment for Master Thief Garrett, re: This isn't a book or movie, where the plot summary etc. sections will change significantly within the first week or so of its release. Unless there is a complex subplot (e.g. the various "hip-hop operas"). With all due respect, but your comments suggest to me that you haven't listened to many albums in over ten years. Most albums have contentual storylines, and most "hip hop operas" are far removed in depth from many concept albums. An album needn't even be a concept album to have dense content. Another matter - not just what the song's/album's information pertains to - that affects this is critical response. Critics affect album sales every time. Another thing is post release fan response, performances specific to the album, single releases etc etc. There are a lot of things that may be affected in almost any article's recent release, and albums are definitely in that category. --linca^linca 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, linking it to Billboard would be a bad idea. As for current templates being used because plots change I don't see that as a convincing reason for their use on movie articles let alone album articles - we might as well have an "unfinished" template that tells people that the article they are reading isn't yet complete. Point being that current templates should only be used for things that are going on and changing at the moment such as a sporting event, television series (not an individual episode), or news event. violet/riga (t) 06:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Generally the less clutter the better, and with no real definition of "Curent" thier is really no point in keeping it. Deathawk 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Really, almost all articles are "current" in one way or another, that's why we update them with the subtext "as of month, day, 20xx. To put up a template just because it's deemed necessary to warn the reader of the article that one facet of the article may change seems overkill. Templates serve their purpose best only to note articles as being on the subject of an unreleased work and other variations where many central factors can change practically overnight. To throw the same kind of attention at updating Billboard placement is overdoing it. TheSoftBulletin82 11:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete It doesn't really add anything that benefits the reader or editor. --Dave101→talk  20:35, 4 August 2007 (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 Deleted. Nominator was the creator and only contributor. Nothing is using the template.. Mikeblas 21:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Korean 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It was used as a sandbox for {{Korean}}. — eDenE 14:44, 29 July 2007 (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 delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Korea sidebar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Replaced with Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Navigation — eDenE 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PC78 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Functionality has been supplanted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:24, 4 August 2007 (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 delete all. IronGargoyle 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Template:Chosonmal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2. Template:Korean name logo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
3. Template:Korean name noimage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
4. Template:Korean twonames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
5. Template:Korean stagename (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
6. Template:Korean stagename image (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
7. Template:Korean threenames image (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
8. Template:Koreanname hanja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
9. Template:Koreanname image nohanja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
10. Template:Koreanname logo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
11. Template:Koreanname logo nohanja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
12. Template:Koreanname no hanja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
13. Template:Koreanname nohanja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
14. Template:Koreanname noimage nohanja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
15. Template:Koreanname north image (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All of them redirects to {{Koreanname}} and are not being used. — eDenE 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. PC78 01:35, 31 July 2007 (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 delete. IronGargoyle 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hakoah Ramat-Gan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It is nothing. Looks like someone should have just used the sandbox. — NYC2TLV 13:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There was an image, which has been removed as a copyvio. Now, since there is only a simple link, there is no need for this template to exist. Shalom ^Hello 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete eDenE 19:46, 30 July 2007 (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 Redirect to {{Refimprove}}. The bulk of the comments suggest straight deletion; however, redirection (as suggested nearer the end of this discussion) preserves the instances in articles where this template is currently in use, which need attention to improve their references (and it is technically easier). {{Refimprove}} seems the most logical template to redirect it to; {{unreferenced}} should only be used on pages without any referencees, which isn't necessarily the case here. Mike Peel 09:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Not verified (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I just came across this template again. In my view it is very misleading. It implies that articles not carrying it have been verified against sources and are reliable, and that there is a general Wikipedia mechanism for ensuring this, which is not the case. Even if an article was originally verified against sources it would have to be verified again after every edit for such a process to have any integrity. It seems to me that there are two reasons why someone might add this template: (1) there are no (or few) sources given in the article; (2) the editor has some specific reason to doubt the accuracy of the article. Both these cases are amply catered for by alternative templates. Matt 11:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: it does seem presumptuous to claim that an article "has not been verified against sources" (whatever that means). If there's sources, then the person adding them either should have verified them or shouldn't have added them. If you weren't the person who added the sources, how would you know that the person who did add them didn't verify them? I can't think of any reason to add this that doesn't violate WP:AGF. If you actively don't believe that the sources verify the statements made, then you should say that instead! And, as nom says, there are better templates for that purpose. This seems very weaselly. Xtifr _tälk 11:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You and the nom miss the point. There are people in wikipedia who actually go around verifying sources, this is not because they fail to assume good faith (as you correctly state) but because in a free editing environment sometimes sources become tangled, content changes, paste the wrong URL, and even people misread sources by mistake. It is to those people this template is directed. However, you do raise an interesting point on the weasellylanguage, but this is not a reason to delete, but something that can be fixed by editing. In fact, I will be bold and do it. It easier than deleting! Thanks!--Cerejota 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Seems it is under permanent protection, so I did a request instead. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe there are, and good for them, but to the ordinary reader this message implies that there is a systematic process to ensure that all Wikipedia articles are verified and reliable, and that this tag in put in place against those articles that are waiting to be verified by this process. How many Wikipedia pages do you think there are whose current versions have not been independently verified against sources by these "people in Wikipedia"? Five hundred thousand? A million? Should we add this tag to every one of them, and then re-add it every time someone makes an edit to an article, pending that edit's independent verification? If this is for the benefit of a team of editors who are verifying against sources then a different mechanism needs to be found. Your suggested addition "Unverified sources should not be added", which I do not fully understand (does it mean "unreliable sources"? does it mean "don't misrepresent or mis-cite sources"?), doesn't help much in my opinion. It seems from that addition as if you're thinking this tag would be applied to an article because it is insufficiently sourced, and sources need locating and adding. In that case, use any of the templates here instead. Matt 11:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

• Comment I came across this template in a stub article that cited no sources, which is misleading when it is used in this context. Therefore, how could the article be tagged as "has not been verified against sources" when no sources are given? For articles that need citations or references, another template already exists to alert editors to include citation and/or reference links. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 20:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have used Template:Verify (a redirect to the template under discussion) as a stronger way of saying Template:Unref, but it's superfluous and misleading. As Xtifr notes, if the idea is that there are sources, but they haven't been double-checked, we don't need a separate template to say that. Shalom ^Hello 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural note Would an admin please mark this template as under discussion at TFD? We cannot edit it because it is protected as a high-risk template. Shalom ^Hello 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Marked as on TfD now. --ais523 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as confusing, as Matt argues. More specific templates are available. But we'll need some way to replace the existing ones--perhaps we can change these to subst: DGG (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This template does push the boundaries of WP:AGF, as it doesn't just say no sources are cited, it assumes a breach of WP:V. I see this template sometimes used as a sort of snarky challenge to the accuracy/sources of the article (especially if sources are actually cited, but the editor placing the template disputes that they are valid sources). More specific templates like Unreferenced or Primary Sources would be better to use. --Wingsandsword 20:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This template assumes bad faith in the sources and implies that articles without it have been checked. Atropos 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP, NO REASON FOR DELETION! This is no harm. That makes people cite sources. --Riley the Kirlia 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So does {{unref}}. What does this template do that {{unref}} does not? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP I find it useful for encouragement of gathering proper references. Pocopocopocopoco 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Supersonic Keep Cleanup templates are good for two reasons: 1) The Bots live by them 2) WikiGnomes would have a hard time without them. Both creatures being essential to wikipedia, any and all specific cleanup templates help direct their efforts are good. We cannot deprive the Super-Double-Secret Source Verification Cabal of this template. Besides, every time you delete a cleanup template, a puppy kitten dies. Please think of the puppies kitten. :( Thanks!--Cerejota 01:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but it's not as cute the second time you use it :) Gracenotes^T § 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I am modifying, cuter now? :P --Cerejota 06:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, now it sounds like the Oralse series. But every time you create a template that's redundant to existing templates (see my entry below), a Domo-kun dies. Please, think of the Domo-kuns. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- there's no arguing with Matt's logic there. JPG-GR 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Matt's logic is spot on. When I first ran across the template I was confused, as it was on an article which 1) cited sources 2) had references. Template made me ask myself: ok does this mean the cited sources arent reliable? does it mean the cited sources dont match what their used on? is this similar to a references missing type template? if this article isnt verified... does that mean this template needs to be on 90% of the articles on WP? Template needs to be applied way too broadly to be of any value. Delete.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ultra Super Duper Delete with Brown Sugar on Top (Knock it off, already. 'strong' is okay to add, but that's enough.) Anyway, this tag is redundant, we have a plethora of tags meeting the ostensible needs of the project, and we don't need anymore. Well, not this one, anyway. Unschool 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete—{{fact}} is more useful for identifying unverified information both in articles which have references and those that do not (but especially the former). Gracenotes^T § 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This template is useful and widely used (more than 1,000 articles). If the wording needs tweaking, let's tweak it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have always construed this template as "This article looks suspicious to me, but it doesn't look like a downright hoax. Use some references to convince me that it's valid." And no, there are no templates that I know of that cover this use. (Please list them and prove me wrong.) And no, I don't think it "implies" anything. (Would you say that e.g. {{hoax}} tag implies that none of the articles not carrying it are hoaxes?) GregorB 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This template is somewhat superfluous to {{Unref}} and {{Unreferenced-section}}, as well as {{Refimprove}} and {{Primarysources}}. As such, this template should be deleted. --AEMoreira042281 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete AEMoreira042281 is right. Use {{unref}} in articles with no references, {{fact}} in articles with references for some but not all claims, and {{check}} for claims that appear to contradict a reference. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I suppose one can argue any article, sourced or not, could have this template placed on it. Assumes bad faith. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as already said, superfluous to other templates. The Filmaker 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is not only superflous, and assumes bad faith, it's also redundant!, since if an article is lacking cited sources that fact is already visible in the bottom of the article. it's, say, like having a template that says "this article is lacking pictures"... I can already see that, thank you very much. Now, a case may be done as to the fact that this template encourages people to cite sources, but then there is a template that says "this page need cited references"--Tsboncompte 01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not always apparent when an article has sources but many of those sources are questionable. I recently used this template on an article which at first seemed fine yet when doing a little digging, 5 out of 6 sources seemed questionable and the sixth hasn't been verified yet. Pocopocopocopoco 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete The template states Information in this article or section has not been verified against sources and may not be reliable-- which is pretty much controversial issue. --NAHID 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A template applicable to too many articles becomes mere noise. --Ebab 07:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. By definition, information added to wikipedia articles should theoretically come with a reliable source. As such, other templates are better off for what this template is supposed to mean. To the uninitiated though, this template can become very misleading. Shrumster 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as per Matt's nom. It is entirely misleading, and if it has to be used, then 90% of articles on WP would need to carry this template. aJCfreak yAk 11:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• per nom. heqs ·:. 11:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to unverified or refimprove. Rich Farmbrough, 13:48 1 August 2007 (GMT).

  Because there are several thousand uses of this template. Rich Farmbrough, 13:51 1 August 2007 (GMT).

• Redirect - get rid per nom, redirect per Rich Farmbrough. violet/riga (t) 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect: look at Genovese crime family, it's duplicating the also-present {{unreferenced}}. Nyttend 16:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect: this should solve everyone's problem. If the objection is that the wording is misleading or that other templates do the same thing, a redirect will certainly fix the problem. And the people wanting to keep it ought to be satisfied because whatever purposes it fills are filled just well by the other template(s) suggested for redirection. -- BRG 17:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. This is misleading and possibly makes an article look completely unreliable with no sense of purpose. --Mnemnoch 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - duplication of pre-existing templates. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Don't destroy information. Is someone going to go through and decide whether each of the articles so tagged is credible but unreferenced, or dubious and unreferenced, or referenced but dubious, or some other combination I haven't thought of? I tend to use cleanup-verify as a "I'm skeptical, but show me a source" tag, which is stronger than a "this looks OK but needs sources". I would lean toward keeping this tag rather than redirecting, since there doesn't seem to be any single tag which duplicates it. But certainly people shouldn't go around and unhelpfully remove these warning flags without fixing the underlying problems. I don't think the existance of this tag implies that all other articles have been verified; it simply casts doubt on the veracity of the articles it is on. -- Beland 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  Beland is, of course, correct. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38 2 August 2007 (GMT).

• Keep per GregorB's reasoning; failing that, redirect per Rich Farmbrough. - Mike Rosoft 12:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - better wording in similar templates. Addhoc 14:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - {{unref}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{primarysources}} have covered every situation I've seen this template used in.--Fabrictramp 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - it seems like a similar concept to {{unreferenced}} 172.191.100.66
• Comment if deleted this template should redirect to {{unreferenced}}. These templates more or less cover the same purpose. User:Caveat lector
• Delete, simply too misleading User:Circeus
• Keep - this tag had often helped me watch out for information that may not be necessarily true. User:Stephenchou0722
• Redirect - wording is problematic. Ewulp 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Rich Farmbrough. Otherwise it will take thousands of edits to replace all the occurrences of this template with something else. I looked at a couple of uses of this template, and they were just marking statements or entire articles that were inadequately referenced. Our referencing problems are not very sophisticated, and the language of this template is trying to be too clever. EdJohnston 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Too many tags causes tagitis. KISS. SilkTork 11:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect/Delete. I remember first coming across this when I was new to Wikipedia, and I was actually confused by the template since it sounded like there was some formal reviewing process. The template's tone is misleading, its application from what I can see is haphazard at best, and we have other templates to indicate a lack of sources to users. Get rid of this one. Redirecting seems, IMHO, to be the most efficient option, but I'll leave that to the experts. Duagloth 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Comment. We need to think how these tags look to the casual visitor. Unschool 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep great and unique template. Perspicacite 17:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "this tag had often helped me watch out for information that may not be necessarily true." Any and all information on the net (and on TV, and in books, and...) may not necessarily be true. We shouldn't be training people to rely on templates to remind them of this. That said, is there another template for "this article cites unreliable or questionable sources"? If not, perhaps we should keep this one with altered language (or would such a template begin a slippery slope of requiring sources to be sourced?) Super Aardvark 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I just realized how silly my suggestion to re-write this template was. I was thinking of pocopocopocopoco's comment, "It is not always apparent when an article has sources but many of those sources are questionable," but I doubt all uses of this template fit that scenario. We should delete or redirect to a general template about reference problems, and create a new template for unreliable sources if indeed one is needed. Super Aardvark 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per GregorB and Beland. Nibios 22:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom: not helpful because it's so unspecific --Flammingo^Hey 08:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as said above, don't destroy information. This template could be changed, e.g. to emphasize that info in this particular article avokes a stronger than usual suspicion, that it is wrong or misleading etc. --Klimov 11:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - duplication of pre-existing templates, as is mentioned above. --S.dedalus 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dave101→talk  20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and also because it's yet another ugly template stopping our readers from actually accessing information. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete People reading the article should verify the sources for themselves, if they exist Bleh999 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to somewhere. Can't decide which one, but deleting it straight up would be silly since it's on so many articles. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Unreferenced Since so many is so poised to get rid of a possibly vital template that is already linked to thousands of Wikipedia Articles. About the only option would be to redirect to a more simpler template like Template:Unreferenced. Anyway I am not confused by what that template states as it seems preaty straight foward to me as it stands now. Sawblade05 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, my quick opinion is that it is too broad/vague/confusing when a better job is already being done by other templates. There are already too many of these kinds of blanket templates existing. Mathmo ^Talk 07:53, 6 August 2007 (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.