Template talk:Improve

Hmm ... not rigor so much as elegance that I was suggesting a template for. We already have the "Questionable" template for proofs that aren't correct / rigorous / complete - I was suggesting something for proofs that while they work well enough, they aren't very pretty, and you sort of feel: "There's got to be a better way to do this."

I have in mind some of the early stuff I posted up in set theory some while back. Once I've got the flurry of maintenance work out of the way I'll explain better what I mean. --prime mover 12:03, 16 February 2011 (CST)

The text of this template strikes me as overly harsh for many situations ("inelegant" is only slightly less of an insult than "blatantly wrong", in my book). How about something gentler like
 * It has been suggested that this proof could be made more elegant in the following manner: —Dfeuer (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Inelegant is not an insult in my book. It is widely admitted that the proof of the Four Colour Theorem in its current form is inelegant, as is that of the classification theorem of the finite simple groups. It is hard for me to imagine someone viewing that as an insult. But then, this may be from my view on the prospected use of the template, which is likely more constrained than your envisaged use. --Lord_Farin (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)