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.
Delete — Confirmed that none of these templates are being used on article pages. Good job of template consolidation! —
RJH (
talk)
15:42, 12 January 2007 (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 page.
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 deletion.RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The intent of this is to insert it after you link to a
WP:PAGE to indicate that you're linking to an essay rather than policy. While well-intended, this seems to imply that if you omit the template, you are linking to policy, which is of course false. The problem lies in people who believe that saying e.g. "merge per
WP:FICT" somehow implies that
WP:FICT is policy. See
Wikipedia:Per for details.
>Radiant<15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. We have policies, guidelines, the manual of style, and essays. In all cases, when an editor says "per WP:____", they're stating that the article in question expresses their views. Something doesn't have to be official policy to be a good idea. Indeed we don't want too many things to be official policy -- a collection of common sense essays and guidelines should carry us through most decisions. -/-Warren15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak delete since it's an unused template, but a comment to make on this...
Wikipedia:Per seems to have been created solely to support this TfD by the nominator, thus creating a perfect example of how Essays can be abused. --
Barberio15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not in conflict; it says that "if you cite an essay that does not imply it is policy". People cite things all the time; it is unwise to assume that (and very easy to check if) anything people cite is policy. Why are you bringing this up on TFD, though?
>Radiant<16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are two things this will lead too, both bad. One, it will cause people to say "Oh, well, I'll just ignore you since you don't have a policy", and two, as cited by the nom, it will cause people to say "That's not a policy, you idiot, you can't do things 'per' it!" And the advantage is... people who are too lazy to actually read the thing linked know it's an essay. What? -
Amarkovblahedits03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral (as creator of template) The purpose of this was to label links as being to essays rather than policy (as
WP:NOTPOLICY (essay, not policy) suggests); it dates from the time when
WP:Nwas an essay, and people kept on using it on AfD as the sole deletion reason. This behaviour may have been defensible, but in my opinion when quoting an essay it's important to think about the policies that lie behind it (for instance, in the case of
WP:N, you can say that if something's non-notable then there's no reason to include it (
WP:NOT#INDISCRMINATE) and that it's unlikely to have reliable sources (
WP:RS,
WP:V)). By the way, it appears to have no transclusions because it's designed for subst, but I'm not sure if anyone else ever used it. --
ais523 16:54, 14 January 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 page.
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.
It's loud, rude, and in any case calls for improper (in)action; in case of speedy deletable-articles, they should be deleted notwithstanding recent creation, for example. Delete. --
Nlu (
talk)
09:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
It definitely needs to be deleted and more importantly, redirected to a better template due to it's intuitiveness as a template name. I agree with moving it to inuse.
Quadzilla9910:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I think this template can improve. To me, it currently looks ugly. On the other hand, the codes {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} are already doing this template's job. -
Qasamaan15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think it is useful to have an "in use" template for specifically new articles. Perhaps a new version of {{
Underconstruction}} which indicates that the article is new and has yet to be "completed" (yes, I know) could be made to satisfy this niche. -
CheNuevara03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Redirect or repurpose. There's a rather nice slip on the tag itself: "Note: If this page remains unedited for over 48 hours, please consider deletion of this tag. Thank you." I make it well over 48 hours without an edit now... Either redirect to {{inuse}}, or repurpose as a (less ugly) tag for articles that are being created in multiple edits (possibly with a note suggesting that creating the article in userspace is another method of avoiding an article being speedied before you've finished a multiple-edit chain). --
ais523 18:23, 19 January 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 page.
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.
So, all visual novels are romantic games? Would you consider
Narcissu and
Planetarian romance novels? Also, your use of the term "ren'ai game" is a neologism not supported by any reliable source discussing video games in English. Even the publishers of so-called "ren'ai games" call them
dating sims.
Ashibaka(tock)20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Seems an unsuitable false categorisation to push all Anime Games/Visual Novels into one for specific (but large) sub genre. --
Barberio14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep: Not only are they not all ren'ai games (and the term "ren'ai games" is questionable), but the deletion seems to be part of a bigger plan that is rather questionable.
Ken Arromdee03:11, 16 January 2007 (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 page.
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.
Delete — Confirmed that none of these templates are being used on article pages. Good job of template consolidation! —
RJH (
talk)
15:42, 12 January 2007 (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 page.
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 deletion.RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The intent of this is to insert it after you link to a
WP:PAGE to indicate that you're linking to an essay rather than policy. While well-intended, this seems to imply that if you omit the template, you are linking to policy, which is of course false. The problem lies in people who believe that saying e.g. "merge per
WP:FICT" somehow implies that
WP:FICT is policy. See
Wikipedia:Per for details.
>Radiant<15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. We have policies, guidelines, the manual of style, and essays. In all cases, when an editor says "per WP:____", they're stating that the article in question expresses their views. Something doesn't have to be official policy to be a good idea. Indeed we don't want too many things to be official policy -- a collection of common sense essays and guidelines should carry us through most decisions. -/-Warren15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak delete since it's an unused template, but a comment to make on this...
Wikipedia:Per seems to have been created solely to support this TfD by the nominator, thus creating a perfect example of how Essays can be abused. --
Barberio15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not in conflict; it says that "if you cite an essay that does not imply it is policy". People cite things all the time; it is unwise to assume that (and very easy to check if) anything people cite is policy. Why are you bringing this up on TFD, though?
>Radiant<16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are two things this will lead too, both bad. One, it will cause people to say "Oh, well, I'll just ignore you since you don't have a policy", and two, as cited by the nom, it will cause people to say "That's not a policy, you idiot, you can't do things 'per' it!" And the advantage is... people who are too lazy to actually read the thing linked know it's an essay. What? -
Amarkovblahedits03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral (as creator of template) The purpose of this was to label links as being to essays rather than policy (as
WP:NOTPOLICY (essay, not policy) suggests); it dates from the time when
WP:Nwas an essay, and people kept on using it on AfD as the sole deletion reason. This behaviour may have been defensible, but in my opinion when quoting an essay it's important to think about the policies that lie behind it (for instance, in the case of
WP:N, you can say that if something's non-notable then there's no reason to include it (
WP:NOT#INDISCRMINATE) and that it's unlikely to have reliable sources (
WP:RS,
WP:V)). By the way, it appears to have no transclusions because it's designed for subst, but I'm not sure if anyone else ever used it. --
ais523 16:54, 14 January 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 page.
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.
It's loud, rude, and in any case calls for improper (in)action; in case of speedy deletable-articles, they should be deleted notwithstanding recent creation, for example. Delete. --
Nlu (
talk)
09:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
It definitely needs to be deleted and more importantly, redirected to a better template due to it's intuitiveness as a template name. I agree with moving it to inuse.
Quadzilla9910:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I think this template can improve. To me, it currently looks ugly. On the other hand, the codes {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} are already doing this template's job. -
Qasamaan15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think it is useful to have an "in use" template for specifically new articles. Perhaps a new version of {{
Underconstruction}} which indicates that the article is new and has yet to be "completed" (yes, I know) could be made to satisfy this niche. -
CheNuevara03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Redirect or repurpose. There's a rather nice slip on the tag itself: "Note: If this page remains unedited for over 48 hours, please consider deletion of this tag. Thank you." I make it well over 48 hours without an edit now... Either redirect to {{inuse}}, or repurpose as a (less ugly) tag for articles that are being created in multiple edits (possibly with a note suggesting that creating the article in userspace is another method of avoiding an article being speedied before you've finished a multiple-edit chain). --
ais523 18:23, 19 January 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 page.
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.
So, all visual novels are romantic games? Would you consider
Narcissu and
Planetarian romance novels? Also, your use of the term "ren'ai game" is a neologism not supported by any reliable source discussing video games in English. Even the publishers of so-called "ren'ai games" call them
dating sims.
Ashibaka(tock)20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Seems an unsuitable false categorisation to push all Anime Games/Visual Novels into one for specific (but large) sub genre. --
Barberio14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep: Not only are they not all ren'ai games (and the term "ren'ai games" is questionable), but the deletion seems to be part of a bigger plan that is rather questionable.
Ken Arromdee03:11, 16 January 2007 (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 page.