This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:Doom ([[Talk:Template:Doom|talk]] - history - links - logs)
Needed? It's funny, but Template:Overhaul, Template:Expansion and [[Template:Cleanup-rewrite]] cover this more than enough. - Sikon 14:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree that the Doom template is relatively vague, and most of the time someone will end up putting a more specific cleanup tag on an article even when this is added. It is a nice idea for a template though. Maybe if we need a similar tag in the future, the "Doomed" idea could be used. But this currently doesn't do anything that isn't already covered. Grudging delete. Wildyoda 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Template:Doom isn't just for articles that are terrible. It's for articles that are both extremely bad and really important. Articles like Luke, Leia, and Han. None of the templates you list have the combination of importance and terribleness that Template:Doom represents. --LtNOWIS 05:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- They might not, but it's still not needed. Importance is subjective, and frankly . . . either nothing important of ours in genuinely doomed, or else it all is. Neither way is the template particularly useful. Delete. Havac 06:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I'm saying. Who cares if it's an "important" article? If it's on the wiki, it needs to conform to our standards. The other, more specific maintenance tags have got this covered. Wildyoda 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. In the short run, bringing major, film-level topics is to Grade A level is more important than secondary material. Articles with this tag should be a priority for Wookieepedians looking for something to work on. There are more specific templates, but this should be used when the whole article is in need of work, and the amount of activity on those pages' discussion will make up for the lack of specificity. Keep. --SparqMan Talk 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I'm saying. Who cares if it's an "important" article? If it's on the wiki, it needs to conform to our standards. The other, more specific maintenance tags have got this covered. Wildyoda 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The other templates do not specify that the article in question covers an essential topic, which Doom does. That is, there are differences in coverage between Doom and the other templates. KEJ 10:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly. As much as I love this template - not only is it funny, but it was the very beginning of Wookieepedia's entire current template system - I really feel it has served its purpose. The articles that currently use it, while in need of improvement, are not in the disastrous shape that this template was introduced to combat. While our core articles are certainly in need of expansion, none of them are doomed enough to justify retaining the template. jSarek 06:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It still serves its purpose, it's not like there ain't gonna be no new essential topics no more, right? Let's just use it on newborn, truly essential articles.--Jinger 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't want to bring up the nostalgia side - but it's true! ;-) I'd say some key articles are still in need of major work. They may have reached a solid place awhile back but have drifted since. I just finished reading Han Solo...and it needs a serious copyedit. --SparqMan Talk 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes it does, but it's not doomed. There's nothing there a cleanup template couldn't accomplish, and it's not worse than almost any other major character article. There's just not enough to justify a whole different template for a subjective judgment of "importance". Havac 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- We could archive this somewhere even if we didn't keep it as a template. -LtNOWIS 10:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)