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).
Non-relevant and inaccurate 'navigation' template for a pageant company that folded 4 years ago and whose main article was deleted in August 2007. Dravecky (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the few links that remain fail WP:NENAN. They are very easily mentioned together if need be; a navbox is unnecessary at this time. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was Merge, keeping the format of the top template. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates template Knoxville area malls. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator OR replace the other one with this one, assuming the headings are needed or significant. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 23:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I relisted this to find a consensus about which template should be kept. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, let me clarify for the benefit of other contributors to this discussion: If the section titles in the template originally listed for deletion (that is, the one for which this section on this TFD log is named) are necessary, then replace the one the nominator claims it duplicates with it; otherwise, delete per nominator. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 04:33, 22 October 2015 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was RelistatOct 31. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
unused and not scalable. Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is to be used, they should all go through piped redirects with "xyz (constellation)" as the link target, to make sure any future page renames won't affect the links. And they should have the option of using the constellation name, the genitive, or the abbreviation as the visible link text. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the deletion policy, useless templates shoud be deleted. I don't see how this one is useful at all. Also, the user who created it has an historic of deleted templates created by him Huritisho 07:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Blocked sock. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, I could see this used by some of the editors to easily insert constellation names without spelling errors, through the abbreviation, when the source uses the abbreviation but no other terms. It'd be more useful if the output display text could also be the original abbreviation, so that you could link through the abbreviation and genetive forms, instead of linking through the regular name form only. Unlike most of Chermundy's templates, this is potentially useful and actually documented. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The template serves no useful purpose and appears unused. Praemonitus (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no constructive use for this template. Constellation pages can be liked using the standard square brackets ([[ and ]]). Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm inclined to agree with the IP that this isn't devoid of usage, and I'd go further and point out that this template might be best used subst-ed. —烏Γ(kaw), 07:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example of a usage scenario where it would be preferable to a Wikilink? Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2015 (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).
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).
Unused and undocumented. BethNaught (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, part of a series of undocumented/unused templates. Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication what this is for, created by a non-responsive user who makes spaghetti out of our article's verifiablity and maintainability -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's not even clear what purpose this serves. It's unused and was created by an indefinitely banned editor.Praemonitus (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, Praemonitus. It was created by Chermundy who has a clean block log. BethNaught (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a mixup on my part. Praemonitus (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was RelistatOct 31. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of template deleted in TfD 7 October 2011, for reasons given in discussion of {{Too many references}}, a similar template deleted in TfD 2 September 2011. Possible G4, but perhaps it is needed now for reasons that were not apparent in 2011. Favored by whoever writes Wikipedia:Citation overkill, it is currently attached to about 5 articles. edg☺☭ 19:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I use this template and created it because I could not find one that highlights sections of articles that contain too many references, according to the Manual of Style. It has been useful for me and probably should be used more in articles where you see ten or more references after a statement. I would like to request that this discussion be postponed until a later date to see if the template can be more widely used. I use it and would not like to have it deleted. Best Regards,
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).
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).
The result of the discussion was RelistatOct 31. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was Keep. The wording of the template is sufficiently different than that of Clarify. {{Explain}} will be re-redirected to this template after all uses correlating to {{Abbr}} have been replaced. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect, per T3, to the longer-standing {{Clarify}}, with which this one is 100% redundant. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy or not, but I am fine with the deletion, since this is redundant to Clarify, its synonym. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As creator of the template, I originally made it because it covered something slightly different to {{clarify}}. Clarify simply says "clarification needed", suggesting that the text as written was sufficient but ambiguous. {{elucidate}} was to indicate that the text was understandable, but that a further sentence or two was necessary to fully explain a point (hence its wording "further explanation needed". Similarly, the words clarify and elucidate, although often being treated as synonyms, have a nuanced difference - clarify meaning to make a point less confused, and elucidate meaning to explain a point. You will note, to substantiate this point, that in the navbox for inline cleanup tags Clarify is listed as a clarity template and Elucidate is listed as a precision template. If Template:Clarify is altered to cover both of these situations, I've no objection this becoming a redirect, but that seems a bit of a kludge to mix two related but separate ideas in this way. As things stand, I feel this is still useful as a separate template. By the way, since one of these templates is just under nine years old and the other is almost five and a half years old, they are both of long standing. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see this as being completely redundant. Clarify and Elucidate have some overlapping cases where either could presumably be used, but it seems to me there are cases where one would be more appropriate than the other. Until such time as the "redundancy" can be demonstrated rather than simply stated, I do not think speedy action of any sort is called for. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could go either way, personally, but if it's kept, then we should change its name to something a bit more clear, like {{Explain}} (which perplexingly redirects to Template:Abbr). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 04:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - I only used "elucidate" for a name when I created this template because "explain" was already in use. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not technically the same in practice as the clarify template. Remember, in theory and in practice are only the same in theory. Goawry (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; I would attempt a pun at elucidating the intended differences, but that would be unclear. —烏Γ(kaw), 04:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. {{Elucide}} says "this needs explanation". {{Clarify}} says "this explanation is not clear". Fleet Command (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how these 2 overlap and they're clearly different terms with different definitions, they may be similar in some contexts but you can't use one for all the same sentences, removing one or the other will create confusion. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as said above, "clarify" and "elucidate" do not mean the same thing. Please also close this quickly, because the deletion request is impinging on the template itself, and making the articles in which it appears render oddly. Readers do not need to see that. — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody please close this as keep per the snowball clause–the clutter it's causing in articles is atrocious. Kharkiv07 (T) 19:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth noting that it's in use on almost 1500 articles. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) as redundant. I also note that the template does not display the word "elucidate", so arguments based on the meaning of that word are irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not about the meaning of the word, but about the difference in usage of the two templates, which is extremely relevant. And, as clearly nted above, the usages are different, so it's hardly redundant. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I can also argue that the issue of words that it displays can be resolved through normal editing and does not warrant a deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2015 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was RelistatOct 31. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was RelistatOct 31. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (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).
