Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 21

< November 20	November 22 >

November 21

Template:Mayors of Valenzuela City

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mayors of Valenzuela City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough articles to warrant a template. --RioHondo (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. I copied over the list to the main article, so now it is also redundant. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re-create as category Category:Mayors of Valenzuela under Category:Mayors of places in the Philippines. --Bluemask (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RioHondo (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Marikina City Mayors

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marikina City Mayors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This listing already has its own box in the main article, not enough links.--RioHondo (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re-create as category Category:Mayors of Marikina under Category:Mayors of places in the Philippines. --Bluemask (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--RioHondo (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Business Districts of the Philippines

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Business Districts of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template.--RioHondo (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template overkill. Vague inclusion criteria, could possibly end up including every business street of the PH. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template overkill, unused (or unlikely to be used), redundant, unnecessary. Xeltran (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Mayors of Makati

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mayors of Makati (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox unnecesary as it links to only three articles, all from this one political dynasty without care for those who came before them. Incomplete/too few links. --RioHondo (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. I copied over the list to the main article, so now it is also redundant. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re-create as category Category:Mayors of Makati under Category:Mayors of places in the Philippines. --Bluemask (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--RioHondo (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2012 Australian Paralympic Ski Team

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 Australian Paralympic Ski Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no "2012 Australian Paralympic Ski Team", there was one for 2010 and there will probably be one for 2014 as well. The 2012 Paralympics, being Sumemr Games, didn't include skiing. Looking for sources which mention some current team as the 2012 paralympic ski team" or some such failed to reveal any, so this seems to be a made up name for a number of people aiming to perhaps if all goes well participate in the 2014 Winter Paralympics. But that's of course a case of WP:CRYSTAL. For e.g. Damien Thomlinson, the only reason to be included here is apparently that he aims to participate in 2014([1]), not that he is part of a real team as described in the navbox. There are e.g. no sources outside Wikipedia which discuss Thomlinson and Trent Milton together, but they are listed here as being on the same team in the same discipline. Fram (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:First Ladies and Gentleman of the Philippines

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:First Ladies and Gentleman of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{First Spouses of the Philippines}}. --RioHondo (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as virtual duplicate. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Xeltran (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Malls in Cavite

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malls in Cavite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete for the same reasons as Template:Major Malls in Laguna. Too few links and is basically just a list.--RioHondo (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Seems like a directory to me. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and unlikely to be used at all. Also...as per nom. Xeltran (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like others said, it is a directory for me and here in Wikipedia, this is not allowed. Let's put it in fact, Cavite is the most populated province in the Philippines.ref Due to this, more infrastructure would be happening due to urbanization, this could mean more malls would be built in Cavite so as time goes, if this template is still in existent, the list would become longer more like a directory. Janbryan (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Preiļu BJSS squad

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Preiļu BJSS squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one blue link, which is the link to the club, which is playing at the third tier. Useless template that should be deleted Mentoz86 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, template serves no purpose i.e. doesn't navigate between notable articles. Giant Snowman 12:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Uninvolved

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barely-used (and apparently moribund) template used as a novel alternative to {{helpme}} / existing DR methods. We've got enough ways of doing this already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how it duplicates {{helpme}}, the closest one is {{3O}} but that one isn't for administrators, and isn't for discussions where multiple opinions are already present. Perhaps {{3O}} should be merged into this one, and a bot updated tracker page be created for dating of requests. Certainly requesting uninvolved persons into a fractious discussion should be something available. (such as to close them). Wouldn't this template be removed whenever someone uninvolved arrived? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merge {{3O}} into it. There should be a way to get people into fractious discussions that may have editors too close to the subject and thus highly attached to various stands. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(User above has posted a comment and then updated his/her view to keep, noting 2 posts are same user, for closer's attention - FT2)

Keep but it would be nice if anyone patrolled it and actually responded to requests. It could probably benefit from greater visibility and encouraging other editors and admins to check it. besieged^talk 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
View by creator In many disputes or article discussions the user doesn't want "help" or a "soft" "fuzzy" wording that seems to suggest they want help or that any newcomers are their "help" (ie allies). They want an utterly neutral "one line" freeing them from argument, that lets them take a back seat or step out if wished, without by default abandoning good practices to a tendentious/argumentative opponent. Users aren't obligated to remain in undesirable debates but can stress (badly) not wanting to irresponsibly abandon them. It's a good quick solution for a headache dispute, a thread that goes "personal", or other escalating or dead ending problem.
Other help templates don't do that. They're good for a user who is sticking round the page, willing to debate, and wants to hear advice or input. But sometimes you just want to say "Uninvolved user or administrator attention has been requested" to others viewing the page, and "Neutral editor/admin please attend this" to outsiders, as brief and neutral as that, and not be dragged in yet again to explain why a tendentious opponent is tendentious.
Nominator is right to suggest some rationalizing of help templates, and perhaps an internal redirect to {{Help me|type=U}} is sensible, but the significance of WP:UNINVOLVED is very widely understood and hence effective. 65.92.181.190 and Besieged make valid points about wider use and better patrolling.
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – see Template talk:Uninvolved where I documented use of this template. More often than not, the tag sits unanswered until the discussion/dispute has gone stale, and eventually someone like me (a non-admin) notices this backwater and takes the time and trouble to close out the neglected tags. Sometimes it's necessary to edit an archived discussion, which theoretically shouldn't be edited, to remove the item from Category:Requests for uninvolved help. Without administrator buy-in to the idea, this is a non-starter. Seems mostly redundant to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems reundant to WP:RFC as anecdotal evidence suggests that this template never results in anything but staleness. Note that the first few !votes suggested merging to {{3O}}, which was deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per 10 £ hammer. Frietjes (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wbm1058. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cleanup-combine

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

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-combine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

overly-specific style flag. Material which is strictly redundant should simply be removed or tagged with {{duplication}}; in other cases, peer review or discussion is a better approach than tagging. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Duplication}}, intent is the same. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per TPH -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Video game cleanup

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

The result of the discussion was delete, if anyone wants to clean them up, I will change the transclusions to {{cleanup}} with the Category:Video game cleanup embedded in the tag for tracking. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game cleanup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another case where the issues described are very common problems in the domain, but where existing cleanup tags (including {{game guide}}) suffice to track it more specifically. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be something that {{WPVG}} be used for? (such as "cleanup=yes" similar to "attention=yes") -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overspecific template for cleanup in a world where generalized cleanup templates are already overused. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with other cases, but wouldn't it make more sense to use one {{video game cleanup}} (or {{cleanup}} with some optional |video game=yes) in an article instead of both {{cleanup}} and {{game guide}}? They overlap, but they are not mutually exclusive. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, if you want a non-specific clean up tag, then use {{cleanup}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly specific and unneeded. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:ToLCleanup

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seldom-used and inappropriately refers to a WikiProject from articlespace (which should be done sparingly). General consensus is that we shouldn't use articlespace tags to flag missing infoboxes, and the rest of the issues can be covered by the more commonly-deployed tags. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be something that {{WPTOL}} be used for? (such as "cleanup=yes" similar to "attention=yes") -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{WPTOL}} is only used on a tiny fraction of the talk pages; the remainder use banners for more specific projects. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, if we want to alert a specific project, add a cleanup tag to the project template per the IP. Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly specific and unneeded. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cleanup-comics

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-comics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While this is indeed a serious problem with comics articles (it affects, what, 80% of them), it is not obvious that a specialised template deals better with the problem than the existing ensemble ({{in-universe}}, {{fansite}}, {{context}}, {{notability}} et cetera) deployed as-needed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be something that {{WPCOMICS}} be used for? (such as "cleanup=yes" similar to "attention=yes") -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, you can always add a cleanup tag to the project template, and we have {{cleanup}} if you want to be non-specific about what needs to be done. Frietjes (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly specific and unneeded. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cleanup-IPA

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-IPA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a relatively minor issue and doesn't warrant a top-level cleanup tag. The existing {{need-IPA}} is sufficient to track and flag problems in this domain. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thump, see its whatlinkshere. Did you think "semi-redlock" meant "send to TfD immediately"? 96.50.22.205 (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contrary to what 96 says above, it has very few mainspace uses, less than 50 right now [2]. I agree that the inline version is probably sufficient. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call me 96.50, not 96. 96.50.22.205 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I fixed my comment. 96.50.22.205 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather call you Mr. 205, as I think anything else is overly informal. But I don't know your gender, so it might be Ms. 205. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per gender nonspecified IP.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm male. 96.50.22.205 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IPA is basically useless. Lovibond (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Chris Cunningham, it seems need-IPA is sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, {{Need-IPA}} is sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Georgian countries

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian countries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, and associated lists, were created by a now-indeffed user in an attempt to chronicle the "Statehood of Georgia", which was the original title of this template. It is simply a collection of various states that once existed in the area now covered by Georgia. It seems like it exists just to create some sort of historical justification for the existence of Georgia. Template:History of Georgia (country) already exists and covers many of these, but is complete and in a more usual format. Due to this, there is no great reason to have this template lying around. CMD (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Clarify-section

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clarify-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Confusing section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Clarify-section with Template:Confusing section.
Same purpose. Replace the look & feel of {{clarify-section}} with the one from {{clarify-section}}. Keep {{confusing section}}, redirect {{clarify-section}} to {{confusing section}} —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Virtually the same. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge, they are nearly identical. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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