Overkill template, with two other templates included (which are of value individually) and a list of seasons, with only one article done. Large, bulky and next to useless, as if needed, the two templates can be placed seperately and the list of seasons converted into a wikilink of
template:Football in Portugal table cells, which I've struggled earlier to make barely usable. After FiP is deleted, the "table cells" template could have that part of the name removed, and used for division and federation articles
wS;
✉01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, too heavy handed for its purpose. With that purpose only really being one article, it could just be subst:ed. -
Splash19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although I've never seen this before, any template that is a redirect outside of the Template namespace should be a Speedy delete candidate.
BlankVerse∅12:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: It was created as a bit of a joke - the idea being to substitute it into a user's talk page. I've recreated a shorter, more useful version. Edit it mecilessly, but please don't delete it on sight.
Alphaxτεχ10:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This template have not been deleted but removed from all articles by
Gdr. The template is a navigational template, it have been discussed before and now GDR thinks there is a consensus since one user was agains and one for removal adding his agains that was a consensus, so he used his bot to remove (not delete) it. See discussion at
Template talk:Sharks. I have stated my point there as has he, or
stan opinion that GDR agrees with. I can not start a edit war with a admin with a bot so I found this place and though this was a good place to discuss. Also see my suggestion to add nav links under language links? not sure if possible, probably better than this template but that is not the vote. This vote is either for deletion and not usage of the template or for keeping and adding the template back to the articles where it was removed from.
Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Is good for navigational purposes, much easier to use than category and tax boxes, especially for new users.
Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This template is currently a very, very partial list of the 350+ total possible sharks. Either it will always be rather incomplete, or it will be H--U--G--E--! Either way, it shouldn't be a navigation template. The template should be converted to a list, which can be grouped, annotated, illustrated, etc., and then a link to the new
List of sharks can be added to the "See also" section of each shark article.
BlankVerse∅15:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with BlankVerse. The template can only contain small percentage of sharks, so a list is more appropriate in this case.
The JPS16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep per Goethean. --
WikiFan04Talk 20:14, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)
Delete as per BlankVerse. It may be "Aesthetically pleasing" now but not when there are hundreds of links on it in the future if kept.
RedWolf 22:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be to listify: therefore I have moved the template to "list of sharks" and editors can do what they want with it.
Dan100 (
Talk) 11:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 1 August PM to 10 August PM — 9 daysRemoved from TFD 10 August PM — 9 days
Delete: This template is unnecessary. We already have one for the City of Chicago and one for the state of Illinois which lists both the Chicagoland region and most of the cities in the regions. Having potentially three regional templates on a page ({{Chicago}} {{Illinois}} and {{Chicagoland}}) just seems excessive. Plus, the template isnt even fell formatted. --Gpyoungtalk03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Parts of Chicagoland lie within Indiana and Wisconsin. —
Instantnood 14:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The template is informative. The easy solution is for {{Chicago}}to replace {{Chicagoland}} in articles about Chicago. --
goethean ॐ
15:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I think the base problem here needs a better solution. Very often you have a city and other governments that frequently go by the name of the city or other names. There is a lot of overlap. I hope this discussion becomes a step on the road to fixing the overall problem. In looking at the template in question, I don't see it as a big issue so I'd vote Keep but maybe someone needs to make sure that only one of the two local ones listed above is used in an article.
Vegaswikian19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
OpposeKeep. As Instantnood mentioned, this template is helpful for those regions of Chicagoland stretching into other states. --
BaronLarf 18:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
OpposeKeep. Chicagoland comprises a significant proportion of the Illinois population as well as serves a navigational purpose for many chicagoland related pages. — oo64eva (Alex)(
U |
T |
C) @ 18:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Could people please use Keep or Delete, rather than Oppose? It makes it harder to know if you are opposing the templates nomination (i.e. want to Keep it) or opposing it's existence (i.e. want to Delete it). I think it is usually the former, but I would rather not have to interpret every comment just to be sure. Thanks.
Dragons flight 21:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
But Chicagoland is defined; see the
Chicagoland article for the counties of which it is comprised. If someone added Rockford thinking it was in Chicagoland, they were simply mistaken.
HollyAm22:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, well-meaning, but inappropriate way to generate
taxoboxes. Currently linked by two articles that I will soon have converted.
Circeus 16:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Conditional Keep-It seems like a good idea and a good thing to have. If it isnt quite up to speed, I think it can definatly be fixed and brought up to standard. I dont quite understand your link about the Taxoboxes, so that is why I voted conditional keep. If you can show that there is a better way to do it, I will change my vote. --Gpyoungtalk17:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Assembling a taxobox can be tricky. A template that handled the more common cases would be helpful. But this tempalte is rather more limited than its name implies. This templace creates a taxobox for a single animal species. It does not handle plants or fungi or other non-animal species. It does not handle taxoboxes for a group larger than a singel species (a family or order, say). It does not handle taxoboxes when any of the less common levels of classification should be used (sub-class or super-class, sub-phylem, etc). If this is to be retained, than the usage of its parameters, and these limitatiosn should be throughly documented, with a link to the page where general taxobox format is described, and its name should be changed to something less general sounding than Scientific classification. Perhaps
Template:Animal species taxobox. Conditional keep if these changes are made. By the way, I don't think tempalte syntax is up to a single tempalte that can handle a fully general taxobox, unless there are tricks to template syntax i don't know yet.
DES(talk)12:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period for comment 5 August PM to 11 August PM — 6 daysRemoved from TFD 12 August PM — 7 days
The template
Template:Infobox French Région was used for only 3 of the 26 régions of France, whereas the other 23 régions have each a specific infobox which is more detailed and better laid out than the generic
Template:Infobox French Région, so I am puting specific infoboxes for the three remaining régions. It's better to have specific infoboxes for each région rather than a generic infobox for all the régions because each région has its own peculiarities, and one generic infobox cannot do the job (some régions need footnotes, some don't, some régions are made up of several départements, while some régions are monodepartmental, etc.).
Hardouin15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Didn't all Regions used to use
Template:Infobox French Région? It is fairly easy to add additional fields to the infobox. If an infobox can be made for all countries it should be easy for French regions.-- User:Docu
Like Gpyoung rightly said, sometimes people try too hard to standardize things, for no real reason. Individual infoboxes take more time to design in the first place, but then they are much more flexible in use than a generic infobox. Besides, I would like to point out that the infoboxes for French régions were all designed with the same format, so if you check several French régions, you'll have the impression the infobox is a unique standardized infobox, whereas in fact it is specific to each région. So we get both the benefit of standardization (uniform format) and the benefit of specific infoboxes (flexibility).
Hardouin16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, as they stand right now Alsace infobox is unneeded specialization. All you have to do is add the links to the files into the french region template and it will give you the present Alsace box.
grenグレン20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
comment I wouldn't suggest botting this as suggested ... there are less than 250 uses and the likelihood is that more than one of the bot replacements would result in some manner of nonsense being writ. Would it be possible to subst: the existing uses if the template gets deleted, which would maintain the status quo on the articles that currently use it while removing it from circulation for new uses?
Courtland01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. That being voted, I'll say that "worrying" is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air.
Courtland 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
3 to 1 is not exactly "consensus", or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. —
Lowellian (
talk) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Let's reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the "old" template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn't make any difference. --
Blu Aardvark | (talk) |
(contribs)07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redundancy stinks. --
jiyTalk 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. -
Splash19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they're practically identical. Anyone who's voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don't need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up.
Keep. I don't understand why people want to delete this. It's not identical to
Template:Otheruses, so it's not redundant, right? —
Lowellian (
talk) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
comment No, it's an OK way to do disambiguation; it's just an inelegant way of doing it. There are few cases where application of the concept the template targets is needed (as noted below) and those few cases can be handled without the use of a template.
Courtland01:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu
Please keep. There were some terrible revert wars over exactly how the disambig notice at the top of
Macedonia should be worded before this template was finally agreed on for that article. I really don't want to see a revert war over its replacement should this template be deleted. It has a use. Please keep.
Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
comment I came very close to changing my vote to Keep, but then considered that an ad hoc disambiguation statement to handle the very contentious issues that you've very rightly highlighted is as appropriate as a template, that the revert wars should not start over just because the template disappears because the text can be recapitulated exactly as it appears without the template being used.
Courtland01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
comment it can be done with {{dablink}} or {{for}} instead. -- User:Docu
Delete. The author responded to questions about the template on the talk page by removing all text from the template. It was not clear what purpose it was intended to serve. Since it is empty, there is probably no reason to keep it.
Vegaswikian20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I'm not bothered whether this is kept or not, but I've re-added the content that was removed, while it's on TFD, and while it's still used by so many pages.
sjorford→•←22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
The content was not removed while it was on TfD, it was removed before. I think this needs to be returned to the last version before your change. As a piece of additional information, the new
Wikipedia:Wikiproject Las Vegas has not included this template in their project, likely because of the problems with the version that was not blanked.
Vegaswikian22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
But this makes no sense - what are people voting on? Voting on a blank template is meaningless - if it's going to stay blank, just speedy it. If you're going to vote on it, then obviously there's a possibility it could be kept, so people are voting on what it's going to look like after the vote. Anyway, that's not even the reason I unblanked it - just seeing the message "this template has been blanked..." at the bottom of one of the casino articles looked ugly and out of place.
sjorford→•←08:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Since it is likely to be blanked after this vote, maybe it should have been a speedy since the vote was about the template at the time it was nominated. If you look at the editors talk page that created this template, you will see a long list of images posted by the editor that have been deleted. While it does not affect this vote, it does may one wonder.
Vegaswikian23:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep It is very useful. It is much easier than finding other pages that have this information. I use this template allot. When a person reading about casinos on the strip, it makes sense that there should be an easy way to browse to other casinos that strike one's fancy. This is the type of thing that makes Wikipedia a pleasure. It happens to not take up very much space at the bottom of a page, either. Sherm. August 24, 2005
I agree with you that ease of browsing is great, but the category system can do the job. The top of each article has a hyperlink to
Category:Casinos in Las Vegas. You click on the link and you can browse to other casinos. I think that's reasonably easy. It also gives you one-click access to
Category:Las Vegas, Nevada (for non-casino points of interest) and
Category:Casinos in Nevada (for casinos outside Las Vegas), both of which are likely meanderings for the reader who wants to browse.
JamesMLane11:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period for comment 11 August AM to 24 August AM — 13 daysRemoved from TFD 25 August AM — 14 days
Keep:I don't know what you're talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer? why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it's not like it's mine, or that I'm making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they're almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. --
Amr Hassan07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the "external links" section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don't see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. --
Blu Aardvark | (talk) |
(contribs)07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, Wikipedia's purpose is not to advertise other websites.
Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This looks very similer to {{
imdb title}} (
t/
l) or {{
isfdb name}} (
t/
l) to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different?
DES(talk)12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link.
DES(talk)12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete in its current form. It's not very useful and does seem to be vanity.--
naryathegreat |
(talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per
DES.
Carioca 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think it's useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.--
DizerX13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, as per
DES.
Joeyconnick 17:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete because the link is only in the form of domain.com/name (such as the one seen on
Sin City page) instead of a harder-to-type form such as IMDb's domain.com/title/ttnumber. Having this template does not make anything easier and does not provide standardization of a complex URL (since the URL is not complex at all). A link to SHH can simply be a regular link, and does not require any special templates. --
Hcblue02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, brilliant, this is just the template for the
creation science article (and I'm sure a few others). The article itself is usually fine, as critism and supporting arguments have their own sections, but the intro has been causing a lot of problems. Is this template documented? --
Ec5618 11:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep' - and use more widely. The intro is often the most contentious section, and a template that makes that crystal clear is very useful. The "section" version is not clear enough, IMO, when used to refer to an intro (people may not be clear about what it's referring to).
Rd23213:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
No - put dubious and Pov-section in a page - you'll see the difference. The former is inline, the latter is not - it floats above the line.
Rd23222:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I propose deletion for several reasons: One is that this is a topic that, if not seen as inherently POV, at least attracts many POV-warriors. Furthermore, there is no need for this article series box; the subject is hard to reduce to a few articles, and bound to invite heated debates over what should and should not be included. Right now the articles are quite randomly choosen, and that is the improved version -- in the initial one, transgender was listed as a sexual orientation, and the debate on the talk page did not leave the impression that the maker of said template was much willing to discuss that obvious mistake. This is not the first attempt to do an ASB on this (or closely related) topics; see
Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed) for a discussion of a previous attempt. Much of the criticism applies here, too. --
AlexR13:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
There are also a few lists regarding this and similar topics if one wishes for a more ordered reading guide. --
AlexR13:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is a useful navigational tool and provides a fairly compact organization to much of the relevant knowledge. If important things are missing they should be added and organization improved, not just delete the whole thing. AlexR, most of your argument seems to boil down to "I don't want to fight about what goes in this template", which is not a good reason to delete it. Certainly you wouldn't make the argument that we should delete the article on
homosexuality just cause people will fight over it? Of course there will be disagreements in this area of Wikipedia, can't be helped, but no one is forcing you to participate. Disclaimer: After this was listed for deletion, I editted it to make it less huge and slightly more readible.
Dragons flight 14:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
You are misreading my arguments - the "what goes in it" is just one part of the problem; and unlike an article the real estate space in an ASB is very limited. --
AlexR17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Well I reread your statement including references to "POV-warriors", "heated debate" and what you perceive as a failed discussion on transgender. Forgive me, but I still get the impression that you are complaining primarily about the difficulty in getting people to agree. If you have another argument, could you please try making it a little clearer for me? Also, how many articles do you think it needs? There are already 31 links there. Adding a few more wouldn't hurt, or it could be condensed by linking to list pages covering the appropriate topic, rather than all the pages individually. Still I don't see deletion as an appropriate solution to what I percieve as a content dispute.
Dragons flight 18:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
As I already said, I think the very format of an article series box is unsuitable for this subject - and I linked to a page going into more detail already. Subjects as complex as this one are, in my opinon, much better served by lists and categories; hence, no such ASB is the solution of my choice. (And as can be seen from the article linked above, that is not exactly a position I've only held since yesterday.) And of course the fact that it is an extremely controversial subject does not help, either. Those, however, are two arguments, not one. As for "how many" - that is a pretty irrelevant question. It is which ones go into that are the problem, not how many. Should - for example - such an ASB try to go from "homosexual and heterosexual", or from "gay and lesbian", or maybe from "androphilia and gynophilia"? Cases can be made for all three apporaches, but if they were put into one ASB that think would drown the article. OTOH, if one approach is choosen, it would be entirely appropriate, and from some points of view even necessary, to make a box for the other two approaches. Not a desireable idea, if you ask me. --
AlexR20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep at least for further discussion. I only created it 4 days ago, and I think the principle of a seriesbox is a useful one. It complements, rather than replaces, categories, because it highlights the major articles of the topic. Obviously there will be disagreement about what they are, and maybe about what the topic is, which will be handled in the usual Wikipedia way. (I'm mystified by AlexR's comment about my not being willing to discuss the inclusion of transgender; I'd said 3 days ago "Let's see if there are any more comments".)
Rd23215:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
You are? That link very obviously did not belong there, so what was there to wait about? Nevertheless, I, like you (hopefully), waited, and nothing came. So I removed the entry, but actually, this does not make this ASB any more useful. --
AlexR17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Although
WP:CSL is of unclear status, this does not prevent it being used as a reason for a vote. I think that this particular point from CSL is a good one, so my vote stands. -
Splash17:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Categorify and delete. The inherent POV attraction of this template can be seen already. Here's a question that will be among the first things that's going to attract POV-warriors and trolling: "Why pink?"
TomerTALK 19:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
What is
WP:CSL, Really? I have never heard mention of
WP:CSL before, which is more than a little odd given the number of navigational templates that come through here. There is no tag for {proposed}, {guideline}, {policy}, etc. Further there are abundant examples of navigational templates which wouldn't meet the strict linear series rule. Based on
this discussion, it would in fact appear there is little consensus for that part of the guideline anyway. I am going to bring this issue up at the Village Pump.
Dragons flight 00:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
My comments at the pump are
here.
Dragons flight 01:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Rename ? I don't really know how to do this voting thing. But my vote would be that this is worthy of being kept, but should be renamed to something like 'sexuality' or 'sexual orientation issues'. Because it isn't really about sexual orientation, is it? It's about sexual orientation as it relates to politics and society. If this were about sexual orientation it would contain stuff like "lgpt performers" or "strapons" and stuff. Also, it might make more sense to make this be a separate category page type thing instead of a box that's always hanging there.
Awk22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Bad idea but should be discussed in a more central place.
Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If you do keep this, change the color scheme to something other than pink. To me as a homosexual male that just seems so... stereotypical. :P
Espantajo00:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
bad title and as a result suboptimal cohesion between included articles. Keep, since those are not reasons for deletion as long as it is used. --
MarSch17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's well used and links to various related topics in just the same way that
Template:Christianity does, for example. I don't see any reason to delete it. —
OwenBlacker 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Rename. I generally prefer series boxes above categories, but this one isn't about sexual orientation. It's about homosexuality, with a few token "where does orientation come from" links thrown in, and a link to heterosexuality second to homosexuality. At the very least it should be renamed Template:Homosexuality. It shouldn't exist in its current form at its current location. It could, however, be useful if retooled or shortened. But if it's shortened enough, maybe a category is better, even though I don't like categories. --
Golbez 08:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
As noted on the talk page, I wasn't sure what the focus of it should be - "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality". I still don't.
Rd23222:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't see a reason for this being deleted? The two given in the nomination text are that it is and/or will attract 'POV warriors' but I do not see that we should be forced to delete anything for that reason, else a whole myriad of other articles should be nominated too, the second reason given was that there are too many potential articles which should and/or could be included, are there any which are actually missing from the template which anyone feels should go in? (or visa-versa?) finally the third reason is that a category is more suited to the job, I don't think this is the case personally, I think ASBs allow the main topics to be navigated to much easier. --
Joolz15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Note: My comment was altered (
[1]) to include a vote, usually when someone explicitly writes "Comment:" they don't want it to be counted as a vote either way. Since there's likely to be no response to my questions which would satisfy me enough to vote delete, I will vote keep. --
Joolz16:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep and improve as per comments above. This is just a few days old. Give it a chance improve. If after it fully matures, the template clearly does not work as a navigational tool then it can be deleted. Everything at Wikipedia has the potential for POV abuse. That is one reason why we all edit and watch pages. --
Samuel Wantman19:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Repurpose this template to focus on GLBT/LGBT issues exclusively. This template can and will create serious problems with some heterosexuals and with people who do not support the ideas of sexual orientation. Not saying it's right, just saying it'll happen.—
Kbolino 01:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Improve as per Samuel WantmanSpaltavian 05:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
This thread's been going for nearly a fortnight (and the note at the top of this page says seven days for
consensus). Votes thusfar: Delete: 6; Keep: 12; Rename (inc "Delete or rename" and "keep and rename"): 5.
Looks like there's no consensus to delete, to me, so I'm removing the {{tfd}} tag. —
OwenBlacker 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 12 August PM to 24 August PM — 12 daysRemoved from TFD 25 August AM &mdash 12 days
I have no idea how many other of these there are, but I have just noticed them cropping up in
WP:FAC and other places. I think they are as bad as {{object}} and its ilk, which were deleted a few months ago. --
ALoan(Talk)16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
ugly, confusing, don't work right deleteMozzerati 19:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'f your suggesting deletion, please don't give a worthless reason.
Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've said it before, and I fully expect to say it again. TFD is not, at least in my opinion, a way to go about regulating user behavior. If you are offended by colored doodads, then write a style guideline on voting and get consensus approval for it. However, right now there is nothing wrong with these templates and if someone wants to pretty up user or talk space, I know of no consensus saying it is forbidden. While we are at it, I noticed that {{Red}} has actually been used in a number of drug-related articles to create red warning tags.
Dragons flight 20:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have created {{tfd-inline}} for the purposes of having a TFD template that can fit into the flow of text without breaking it into multiple lines. Obviously you can see the effect of this on the red, green, and blue mentions by Septentrionalis above.
Dragons flight 20:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not as bad as the other ones we deleted because comments were made that the images increased load times, that argument can't be made here.
Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. I agree with
Dragons flight.
ALoan should have initiated a discussion regarding the behavior to which he/she objects, instead of attempting to eliminate the legitimate means by which said behavior is accomplished. —
Lifeisunfair16:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep and subst, per Plugwash. If the user is expecting one use for it, they don't want it changing in the future. It is potentially useful for the non-HTML fluent among us. I won't use it, but I have no objection to others using it properly (i.e. in relevant situations and with subst:, as the template call is unnecessary).
[[smoddy]]23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment using subst on templates like this is a double edged sword, on the one hand it reduces server load slightly (yes i know netoholic has been crusading against templates on the basis of a very vauge comment by jamesday but when i actually tried to speak to jamesday about the issue he seemed to ignore my questions as if it wasn't all that significant after all). However subst also dumps the html from the template into the wikitext making it harder to follow.
Plugwash23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Wow, I never thought I'd be defending Netoholic. Please read
WP:AUM - Jamesday is likely not answering you because he has lots of things on his hands, and it's been debated to death already. This issue is very real.
Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I have read that page and also its corresponding talk page and some associated revert wars. If the devs really thought this was important don't you think they would have gone through jimbo rather than making fairly vague comments like the one on that page.
Plugwash16:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
del, how lazy can you get? Besides if someone uses a template like this you have to look it up to see what it does, while a simple font-tag is much clearer and cleaner. When programming you also don't make functions for every tidbit, then also don't make a template for every trivial task. It's just stupid. You need only see the font version once to know how it works and if not just keep a copy on your user page. Hey Radiant, don't defend Netoholic and not vote. Defend AND vote. --
MarSch17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, someone should put together a list of all the templates for easy reference and add the colors that use 6 digit codes (eg. color="f0f0f0"). Where can we look up these codes, btw?
NoSeptember13:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, do not use subst: as it obfuscates the source. If you don’t think a particular bit of text should be coloured change it, and if you don’t like the font tag change the templates.
Susvolans(pigs can fly)14:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on.
DES(talk)23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its "value" are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete. --
Corvun 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Categorify. It's a good idea but it's far too big and unwieldy. I'd like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category.
Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: That's pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template's talk page or the fantasy talk page. --
Corvun 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The "fantasy authors" and "list of fantasy authors" should be dropped to just "fantasy authors" and that promoted up one level so it remains.
Courtland 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I've divided the template into "articles" and "categories", with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%.
Keep and correct if needed.
Halibutt 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, still needs trimming. I personally find vertical navboxes to be intrusive and ugly and prefer horizontal ones at the bottoms of articles, but that's a content issue. -
Sean Curtin 01:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but change that godawful color!--
Kross 07:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but might I suggest that they are somewhat overly large? Using abbreviations may help, rather than repeating the phrase "super mario world" five times.
Radiant_>|< 08:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful navigational template. It goes at the bottom of the article, so it's not like it's getting in the way of anything important.
Nohat08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep: I agree on the colors. Is there any way to see the CSS sheets used by wikipedia? ~
Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠ 21:56, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
Keep: Very useful navagation aide. I don't particularly care about the color much.
Fieari 22:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see any reason why to delete these. These pretty much define the purpose of navigational templates. --
Titoxd07:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep Useful.
JtkieferT |
@ |
C ----- 09:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Navigational templates are more useful than categories, since they can list entries in the poper order while categories can only do alphabetical order.
—
P Ingerson(talk)09:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very good tool, although it really needs cleaning up to include SMW2:YI and other things
—
P Ingerson(talk) 13:50, 17 August 2005 (BST)
Forgot to vote Keep. Also, Ingerson, Yoshi's Island IS there. --
A Link to the Past 14:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I don't know how many times i've used this template, but i know its saved me a lot of time searching for various zelda related articles. --
ZeWrestlerTalk00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep both, but change that color (Mario) and make the thing smaller (Mario); it dwarfs some of the smaller articles like
Yoshi Topsy Turvy. --
gakon5(talk) 21:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep both I've said this before on other template pages, a template for a game series is VERY useful, especially for readers who glance over the categories link.
Amren(talk)20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period for comment 16 August to 23 August — 8 daysRemoved from TFD 24 August — 9 days
"The novelty of research or terms used in this article is disputed." This is a rather obscure (and mostly unused) form of dispute resolution, and we already have far too many confusing variations on {{disputed}}.
Radiant_>|< 08:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a perfectly appropriate way to identify cases of alleged original research. Also I don't see how it's a form of dispute resolution, since it simply directs users to the talk page. Thus, unless it actually does overlap with another template, keep. --
Visviva13:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Redirect. The real objection is that it duplicates
Template:original research, which is more clearly phrased, and is named more in template style; compare {cfd} which is lower case throughout. But if someone wants to call it OriginalResearch, I have no problem with that.
Septentrionalis18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. This template is massive, containing a link for every country in a world. Most of the links are red and likely to stay red, because we simply don't need a Status of religious freedom article in countries where it simply isn't article-worthy. It's kinda like having the article
Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union, then having a template with 192 links to Involuntary settlements in (country).
Coffee06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Very subjective box. People have started including their cities arbitrarily. District headquarters in Tamil Nadu or some such list would be more objective. --
Sundar\
talk \
contribs 03:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This might be a good time to
Be Bold! and go ahead and edit the template, and perhaps even rename it. It doesn't sound like a reason to delete the template.
BlankVerse∅14:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Categorify and delete. There's no particular connection (linear series per
WP:CSL) between these that is served better by a template than by a cat. (Or even by both a template and a cat).-
Splash19:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep!. I've used the same argument every time a template for a major film director has come up (and will keep using it). Many of the average vistors to the Wikipedia who will look at one film by a director will also want to look up one or more other films by the same director. Instead of forcing that to be a two step process (either going to a category or to the director's main page), it is much easier to work with a well-designed navigation template.
BlankVerse∅12:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete for consistency. I very much agree with BlankVerse, and the deletion of the other templates does decrease the wiki's navagational functionality. However, if we are voting on this template, there is no reason why Lynch should have one if Spielberg, Hitch and Kubrick are denied one.
The JPS 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Keep pending advanced discussion.
The JPS17:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep Same reson as for the shark template below, interesting that BlankVerse has a strong keep for this and a delete for the shark one. The only different is that there are 350+ species of sharks, but there will never be that many wikipedia articles. I think we need to do something about nav templates, as it is now this is very chaotic and non consistant, I suggest to implement a list of related articles that can be under the 'in other languages' box. Then it will not take much space and can be much longer than a nav template today. Not sure if it can be done with wikimedia today, I asked at
Wikipedia:Bug_report, no answer yet.
Stefan 04:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep For better overview and navigation. --
ThomasK 09:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: There needs to be some policy on director's templates. The wiki should be consistent, and this template shouldn't be kept if Hitch et. al. were deleted. Again, I vehemently agree with the keep votes.
The JPS15:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Keep For ThomasK's reasons and the fact that any sort of easy-to-read template always makes the wiki more user-friendly and presents information immediately. I also urge very, very strongly to reinstate the other deleted director templates, which I felt were very helpful and I was shocked to see them go. It's a shame we have people who actually think that making the wiki less legible is a good idea. KEEP THESE TEMPLATES!!!
Gsgeorge16:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Conditional delete. While I'm unhappy that useful director templates keep being deleted, it's unfair if this template stays and other director templates go. Either delete this template or undelete Spielberg, Hitchcock et al. --
Titoxd22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This is a problem, yes. This TFD has generated quite an interest for the 'keep' camp, and it might be worth continuing it elsewhere to achieve some sort of consistency. Hopefully we can get the other templates reinstated, and the deletionists/anti-template brigade will leave us alone.
The JPS23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Stong Keep. The template aids in user naviagation, conveys information and is compact. "Consistency" can not be a reason to delete this template, since the other director template have only been remove recently, and discussion has only just begun. --
Commander Keane 06:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Categorify and delete for consistency and easier navigating.
Radiant_>|< 16:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Clicking an additional link each time a user wants to switch articles is meant to be easier? Keep the category too: we should maximise the wiki's capabilities. The consistency argument (to which I was a subcriber) is redundant now that there are more keep participants (for a possible undelete and wider policy discussion)
The JPS17:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I can't believe this discuission is even happening. Like all the director templates, this is very useful and hurts nobody. If we're worried about space, just make it horizontal instead of vertical. The deletion of the other director templates was absurd, too.
The Singing Badger16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period for comment 2 August PM to 9 August PM — 7 daysRemoved from TFD 10 August PM — 8 days
Note: Voting suspended.This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through "What links here". The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted.
Note that this
change was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator's
original intention and the tag's overwhelmingly popular application. —
Lifeisunfair04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking for {{seemain}} when they mean {{main}} and it is too much trouble with very little benefit to try and cure everyone of this confusion.
Dragons flight 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I suspect Whatlinkshere entries for a redirected template are created in the target template, thus Whatlinkshere:main probably contains some seemain references. The TfD vote can continue, this problem merely means that all cleanup deletions of redirected templates have to deal with such technical issues. (
SEWilco19:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Last night, when the nineteen articles in question were listed on the "Whatlinkshere" page, {{seemain}} was not a redirect; it contained the TfD notice. As
Radiant indicated, three of the titles (
Germany,
Human and
New Zealand) appeared when users made unrelated edits to the corresponding articles (after I first viewed the "Whatlinkshere" page and began removing the template). —
Lifeisunfair19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Right. A Redirect page does not allow the TfD template, so the apparently-orphaned redirect was replaced with the TfD template. When I reported the templates were orphans those articles were not in Whatlinkshere:Seemain, and appeared when edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (
SEWilco20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))reply
For whatever reason, articles containing {{seemain}} continue to appear on the list (without anyone adding the template). For the time being (until this problem has been resolved), I've restored the redirect. (And if you really stop to think about it, a TfD message in an orphaned template serves little purpose.) —
Lifeisunfair07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I see. The articles which showed in Whatlinksher:Seemain were those which were edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (
SEWilco20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Delete those extra templates #2-#20; where did those come from anyway? As for the first one, I have no objection to the redirect. Templates sometimes get a longer 'whatlinkshere' when articles containing them are 'touched', so for an oft-used template it's not necessarily possible to find all links to it. Try using google as an alternate method.
Comment: The extra templates 2-20 are for multiple references, and will be converted later thus are not part of this TfD. (
SEWilco18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Keep {seemain} and at least 2 through 4 of the others. Useful, and easier to maintain than typing in the same italicized sentence all the time.
Septentrionalis16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep but delete all those starting from {{seemain3}}. We need a template for the plural form. The rest can be done by using {{seemain2|Foo1|Foo2]], [[Foo3]], [[Foo4}}. —
Instantnood 11:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, categorize, and Listify: Another large incomplete navbox. I suppose it is appropriate to its contents that it is also uncommonly bleak, but it is still unneccessary.
Septentrionalis19:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. — My message to the user Septentrionalis. Do not abuse your wiki-rights (one of them being the right to nominate a template for deletion) which you did abuse by ignoring your wiki-obligations (one of them being the obligation to RTF-M - here specifically
-DC=Deletion Criteria). If you have not noticed yet, the incompleteness and bleakness criteria are not listed as valid critera for a template deletion.SorryButAnAbuseMakesMeReallyMad08:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This might be useful, if most of the names were not wrong, thus disseminating misinformation. See the number of redirects in the template. Attempt to make a template do the work of a category.
Keep, why don't you just fix the errors instead of asking to have it deleted?
Keep. Didn't see any redirects in the template, and even if there were I would have edited it. I also think new users and readers find templates easier than categories, so, useful.
CanadianCaesar02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. The "wrong" names are an attempt to simplify the issue. The complicated issues are discussed in the articles and if you are dissatisified with the discussion, please feel free to amend. A useful bunching of topics. Templates and categories can overlap. It's not a crime. Creator vote.
jengod 06:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It looks boring, but it provides a useful array of related items on a given theme. --
Eoghanacht 12:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
Keep. I see no problem having this template. No different in function than
Template:United States. --
tomf688<
TALK> 14:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. VFD is not the place to resolve issues with the content of articles, neither is TFD for resolving a disagreement with the way things are named in a template.
TomerTALK 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly and un-needed/un-wanted template designed entirely for POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling, has appeared on dozens of un-related articles, and clearly must be deleted--
64.12.116.614:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I put it their. I have tryed to cearfully set up
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war to be a NPOV project. Can you give some evidence of POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling? I belive that all the articles the template appears on are related by being about anit-war movments or ideas.--
JK the unwise16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for free speech or discussion.
Agriculture 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Keep Wikipedia may not be a palce for free speech and discussion, but it should be.
Agriculture18:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep in agreement with the ability to discuss opposition to war in an NPOV manner. Further, the identity of the nominator is hidden as the IP address is an AOL multi-user address. Anything nominated anonymously should be removed from here by an admin immediately, just as anonymous or unsigned votes are to be ignored in the consideration of whether or not to delete an item.
Courtland 01:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, having presumed that purpose is to inform, not persuade. (To make this clear to casual observer, I might
suggest renaming the project). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: The point of this template appears to be easy navigation between articles about Beethoven. I don't think it helps particularly, though, for a number of reasons. The list of works calls for completion in order to be useful (because a bagatelle and two piano sonatas--in addition to the symphonies, of course--hardly deserve their own little template), which would not only be quite too huge for a template, but also already available in its right place (
List of works by Beethoven). Listing the symphonies alone might serve a purpose for navigation, admittedly, though, but only marginally. The other articles (i.e. those not about individual works) are all linked from the appropriate section of the main page, like they should be, and as should be enough.
EldKatt (
Talk)
19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
keep: I think this is very useful. I have taken the liberty of adding
List of works by Beethoven to the template, though. If we keep the template, we should probably find a few more of his most prominent compositions to include. --
Arcadian20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, but be merciless in deciding which works get onto the template. It might thus be necessary to junk the template at a later time if such agreement simply cannot be reached. -
Splash06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: I should've clarified this in my original proposal, but I'm only opposed to this template as a general Beethoven-related template, which would be POV-prone and hard to manage, since it can't be exhaustive. I'm quite positive to a specific "Beethoven symphonies" template (and "Beethoven piano sonatas", "Beethoven string quartets" etc, for that matter), though, which seems like a plausible result of the consensus so far. But I very much doubt the possibility of agreeing on a set of notable works for a template like this. Personally, I certainly wouldn't list Für Elise, for example, but I'm sure this would meet some disagreement, by virtue of it being such a famous little piece.
EldKatt (
Talk)
12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete: I find EldKatt's argument completely convincing. There are so many famous works, and we couldn't possibly fit them all in a template of reasonable size.
Opus3316:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm convinced by EldKatt; Arcadian wants "more prominent compositions", but a huge number of Beethoven's works are prominent; I think it would save time to modify Splash's proposal: be merciless and delete. FYI: I created the Beethoven string quartets and Beethoven piano sonatas templates. The only reason I think they are a good idea is because musicians refer to them by opus number: "Piano Sonata No. 21" is mostly known as "Op. 53" or "The Waldstein", and "String quartet No. 7" as "Op. 59 No. 1" or "Rasumovsky No. 1", so the template really does aid navigation. I would not oppose a "Beethoven symphonies" navigation template (although should that include
Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper)?) although I see less of a case for that since the numbering of the symphonies is simpler. I think the template under discussion here is unnecessarily trying to do the impossible. --
RobertG ♬
talk14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, since it would be unmanageable to have all Beethoven's works in this template, and that would be the only reasonable way to proceed with it. I strongly support the idea of templates for subsets of his compositions, and Robert is right about the works being referred to by opus numbers ("hey, wanna get together tonight and play opus 131?" -- that's the way musicians refer to Beethoven's pieces). For completeness and consistency -- though I'm aware of the threat of Emerson's hobgoblins -- we could have templates for symphonies, concertos, incidental music, variations, and anything else by B.
Antandrus (talk)15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period of comment 18 August PM to 25 August PM — 7 days Removed from TFD 31 August AM — 13 days
I suspect this is an attempt to create a template to be used in templates that produce conditional output (I created a template of the same name some time ago, which was deleted last April). I'll ask the user who created the template about this, but there seem to be some others (which, no doubt, didn't work either), specifically
Template:/div=True and
Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True. --
Rick Block (
talk) 17:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
It turns out
Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True does work, and is used in
Template:Canadian City (and has essentially the same content as
Template:hide). Before closing this vote I suggest we wait for comments from the template's creator (
User:BCKILLa - no edits since
August 7). It may well be that
Template:Hide is meant to serve as a less obscurely named pattern for similar templates (in which case, the other same-content templates could redirect to it). --
Rick Block (
talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
delete useless and introduces potential for serious browser incompatibility. Note, there is an alternative,
inote which does the same thing in a different way, just leaving an HTML comment, and which is used for invisible references in text.
Mozzerati
Although the local effect is similar,
template:inote has a completely different function. The use of
Template:Hide (or
Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True) is to conditionally suppress some part of the output of a template. For example,
Template:Canadian City has a parameter Motto which usually appears following a label (Motto:), see for example
Calgary, Alberta. For cities lacking a motto, the label can be suppressed by adding a parameter Disable Motto Link (with the value True), see for example
Burlington, Ontario. The "normal" ouput (without the suppression parameter specified) is of the form <div style="visibility:hidden;">weird junk with curly braces</div>[[Motto]]:</div> (so the div makes the weird junk invisible, but note the second close div in this case is unmatched). With the suppression parameter set to true, the "weird junk with curly braces" turns out to be an invocation of a template like
Template:Hide which expands into another <div> matching the first close div. This makes the initial div apply to the Motto: label, making it invisible. One advantage of this approach is that if there's ever if-then-else syntax added to templates, the invoking template can be fixed without requiring any changes to any of its references. HTML comments do not nest, so there's no way using HTML comments to do precisely the same thing. This is an extremely clever workaround to a limitation of the existing implementation of templates. We could perhaps argue this is too clever, but I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting (nor even discouraging) excessive cleverness in templates. --
Rick Block (
talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep based on Rick Block, though I tend to agree with the excessive cleverness. Once pages start looking like programming code instead of text many editors shy away.
SchmuckyTheCat21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period of comment 19 August AM to 27 August PM — 8 days Removed from TFD 1 September AM — 13 days
Delete, if noone expressed any interest in using it, why have it hanging around? In the end, it will just be replaced by a redesign if someone wants such an infobox and the signs would seem to be that they don't. -
Splash19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see how it can be developed to a useful enough standard to become a great template on its proposed subject. For example, how useful is it to point out those three typical instruments? If each pointed to an article such as "the drum in Christian music" then that would be a different matter, but I don't foresee those as realistic articles. It seems to me that a better solution would be to have one article on Christian Music and put the info in the article, with the instruments wikified as normal, and a see also at the bottom. Quite how Rock n Roll and Hip Hop justify places in a Christian Music template (again, without links to more specific articles, such as Christian Hop Hop) I fail to see. It's essentially a collection of bemusing links that completely fail to deliver a satisfying navigational theme. --
bodnotbod 11:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 9 August to 3 September — 25 days Removed from TFD 4 September — 26 days
Template:R from CamelCase, Template:R from UN/LOCODE, Template:R from title without diacritics, Template:R to decade, Template:R for convenience and Template:R CamelCase
Apparently I missed some. Same reasoning as below.
Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep all and nominate individually.
Courtland 00:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category
Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect.
∞Who?¿?04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. Helpful to select redirects. It might be worth noting that since creation, these templates worked in at least 3-4 different ways. Initially mainly "Whatlinkshere" worked and the text of the template was displayed below the redirect. Since the most recent Mediawiki version, categorization works (again). Personally I think they are good thing to include when a series of redirects are created by bot, e.g.
Redirects from US postal abbreviation. Later, they can easily be identified. -- User:Docu
Request for Comment That accusation requires some explanation. How is the use you mention an example of "abuse" of the template?
Courtland10:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period of comment 19 August PM to 30 August AM — 10 days Removed from TFD 4 September PM — 15 days
Same reasoning as above, except that I was told this was an exception so I'm listing it separately. Its name is somewhat confusing, to say the least.
Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've not needed to use this yet, but I can see it's utility. In particular, there are terms in biology and medicine and sociology and et cetera that have changed meaning over the decades or centuries, which would be one application of the template.
Courtland 00:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I just came across this scheme for categorizing all redirects to clarify what they redirect to. However, in 99% of all cases that should be immediately obvious from the relevant names, and in others the talk pages should suffice. Few people look at redirects anyway, and attempting to templatize and categorize them all is misguided and serves no real purpose.
Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again? —
MichaelZ. 2005-08-28 15:45 Z
Keep all for now and nominate individually; some I'd vote to delete, some to keep - but I don't want to consider them as a group. I make liberal use of some of these templates and do see a point to them in the form of descriptive classifications of redirects.
Courtland 00:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category
Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect.
∞Who?¿?04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think categorizing these is a good thing, and if a question arises why a redirect is there, and it falls under one of these categories, it provides a good reference point. "Why does is there a redirect? Oh, I see -- its because of _______"
IanManka06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, although some borderline cases might be better nominated individually. -
Sean Curtin 04:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep most. For example, it is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wikipedia or portions of it. There are similar arguments about a few other "R from..." templates. A few might be merged, but IMHO voting must be done on those individually. --
Paddu19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
OK, so "R from misspelling" is not included here. Replace "misspellings" with "alternative capitalisation" in my comment above. --
Paddu19:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep (or replace with a better way) Categorizing redirects is a good thing. I'd prefer something in the syntax of #REDIRECT inself, but the technique serves to document the reason for the redirect. Redirects have been abused all over the place (speaking as someone who recently decoupled
feature film from
film and
agricultural subsidy from
agricultural policy). BTW
feature film had been a redirect for over two years...
66.167.137.18201:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC).reply
keep appreciate the cleanup effort, but this is useful and used. Thanks, Radiant, for providing an opportunity for this demonstration of the consensus to keep these. Thanks!
JesseW09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep as above. -- User:Docu
Keep, though some of them could be merged. There might be too many to choose from now. --
Kaleissin 20:00:15, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
To be fair,
User:Radiant! gave reasoning in the discussion below this one, and this one is included in the discussion above, as there is no Tfdu template yet (umbrella template like {{Cfdu}} or {{Cfru}}), so this one is just used as a "pointer" for the tfd's.
∞Who?¿?16:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is useful in highlighting common misspellings (which I probably misspelled :) ) and there are cases where someone labels something as an incorrect spelling (can't screw that spelling up) which is actually an alternate name (for instance "canvas" and "canvass", the latter an uncommon correct spelling of certain defintions of the former). Useful redirect descriptor.
Courtland 00:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category
Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect.
∞Who?¿?04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
comment: Meaning, in my opinion, that without the "whatlinkshere" functionality, there's little hope of editing the referring articles to remove the misspelled linkage.
Courtland 14:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wiikipedia or portions of it. --
Paddu19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I created this. And if you're not supposed to use it on VfD, it certainly can be useful in other parts of Wikipedia that involve votes, such as simple yes/no polls. Besides, why do you think "VfD" isn't even in the title of this template?
Also, now that I've read the policy prohibiting such tally boxes on VfD sub-pages, you should know that I only added the vote bar as an ad hoc measure, since so many opinions were registered on that VfD subpage that I felt I had to add it, to make it unnecessary for other users and admins to have to read through all those opinions (almost 200 on that particular page) to simply track the general scenario. Denelson8306:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Apparently under the criterion that since Wikipedia is not a democracy this template is useless or so. No cause for speedy though methinks. --
MarSch12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I speedied it because it's something that should never be used on wikipedia anyway. But good point: I forget that admin percentages are down relative to all the new folks, so you can't just ask the next guy over to take a look. (So adminship is temporarily a big deal , Very very annoying :-/). Here's an example of the template in use, and I've left it undeleted so you can pick it apart.
Delete, but only if such a consensus is reached via the TfD process; this is not a speedy deletion candidate. Kim: I recommend that you formally enter your vote (and allow another admin to close the debate). —
Lifeisunfair 14:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Vote changed. (See below.) —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
You've probably heard this over and over and over, but
Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this is not a vote in the first place.(It's a consensus finding poll). Even then, VFD, TFD and CSD don't override every other policy or practice, else wikipedia would grind to a halt.
Kim Bruning 14:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (PS. Specifically,
WP:NOT was written and reviewed by 100s or even 1000s of wikipedians over a period of years, while this tfd poll is conducted by a handful of wikipedians over a couple of days. Figuring out where consensus lies is left as an excersize to the reader ;-) )
Kim Bruning15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, this is the prerogative of all Admins, to turn their adminstrative power into the ability to impose their will on the community. An admin should not function as a judge-jury-and-executioner, but as a member of the community who is no more or less special in the validity of their opinions as any other non-admin. Figuring out whether you have crossed the line into inappropriate behavior unbecoming of an admin is left as an excersize to the reader. :(
Courtland 15:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't use admin perogative, like you said, I'm just an editor with a couple more buttons. In this case, there is sufficient (actually overwhelming) consensus to delete, because of existing policy, which is supported by thousands of wikipedians. Does that help?
Kim Bruning19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Invoking majority rule regarding the "votes" to delete this template when you've been touting that this is not a democracy doesn't help, no.
Courtland 20:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, in this case I'm referring to the inertia of getting all those people to change their mind, there was never any vote for WP:NOT, AFAIK.
Kim Bruning23:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
1. Please consult a dictionary, and you'll find that the word "vote" doesn't necessarily imply that a decision will be reached via a numerical count. Used as a noun, "vote" can mean "a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue" or "a means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot." Used as a verb, "vote" can mean "to express one's preference for a candidate or for a proposed resolution of an issue; cast a vote" or "to express a choice or an opinion." Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition —
Lifeisunfair16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Ah, wikipedia jargon, my fault. A vote in wikipedia parlance is a
majority vote (the root of all evil), while a poll is an
opinion poll, which is a nescessary evil.
Kim Bruning
I didn't refer to this discussion as "a vote"; I unambiguously referred to "your vote" (id est, your formal expression of preference for a proposed resolution of the issue). This page is the template equivalent of
Votes for deletion, so please don't lecture me on "Wikipedia parlance." Please also refrain from arguing the widespread belief that VfD is misnamed, because it isn't.
And even if I had used the term in the context that you suggest, I still wouldn't have been incorrect; "vote" ("the act or process of voting") != "majority vote." —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
2. Yes,
WP:NOT was written and reviewed by a multitude of Wikipedians, but so were the deletion policies that you've unilaterally decided to circumvent. I believe that this template should be deleted, but not until the correct process has been followed. I was under the impression that you had realized your error, but it's clear that I was mistaken. I respectfully request that you once again undelete the template (and leave it undeleted, pending the outcome of this debate). —
Lifeisunfair16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually the CSD was only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well, so a lot of folks think that the current CSD rules are pretty weak. On the other hand, the fact that wikipedia is a consensus community is a given based on the fact that we're a
wiki. We've all accepted that rule by editing here, basically. :-) So rather than unilateral circumvention, a better term in this case might be might be kilolateral uncircumvention. Let's not have TFD dictate wikipedia policy.
Kim Bruning19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Firstly, I referenced "the deletion policies," not any particular deletion policy. Secondly, you claim that the
CSD were "only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well," and that "the current CSD rules are pretty weak," but who are you to decide this, and why haven't you raised these issues on the
talk page (to which you've yet to post a single remark)? And as I note below, the concept that this template violates the spirit of
WP:NOT is your personal belief, and should not be imposed upon the entire community. —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry but at no point does this template state that the result must be followed - it is merely an indicator. I don't want to cause a fuss, but you are almost violating
WP:POINT on this, and you have violated the TfD process. Because there are a few people wanting it to be undeleted I am going to do so - call it partial consensus if you will.
violet/riga(t)19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, it Counts Votes, that sucks quite enough. It's probably ok to undelete it temporarily, but you'll have to watch it carefully to make sure it doesn't get transcluded anywhere. (And explain to and warn every person who does so).
Kim Bruning19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't recall seeing any consensus that this template "should never be used"; that's based entirely upon your arbitrary assessment of its potential applications and your equally arbitrary interpretation of
WP:NOT. Any template can be misused, but that doesn't mean that we should employ the pre-emptive measure of deleting all of them. —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete although it is pretty, and shouldn't have any effect on the closing admins decision, I think it would only make users vote in order to sway the decision, w/o reading the discussion. The discussion is the whole point, and if its going one way or another, maybe its becuase users changed their votes, and you would never know that if you stared at the pretty bar and didn't read the discussion.
∞Who?¿?19:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have two distinct reasons for keeping this. Reason number 1: While I agree, not a democracy, I also feel that there should not be any prohibition against trying to summarize the state of a complicated discussion. In my mind that is likely to involve counting votes (for good or ill, we all do pay attention to how much support each side has). That said I wouldn't endorse using it on any but the most complicated couple percent of votes. Perhaps having a guideline that there must be 50+ participants before it can be used. Reason number 2: I feel this comparison bar is a neat hack that is likely to be useful in article space. Large parts of the real world are a democracy and certainly Wikipedia talks about that. We could use this to show the outcome of real world votes. Not to mention comparisons where there are two elements but which are not neccesarily votes. Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress? Size of Earth vs. Size of Sun? Men vs. Women as CEOs? Okay, so maybe all of those aren't necessarily good ideas, but I believe the widget could be useful even if there was/is consensus for never using it on VFD.
Dragons flight 19:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I did not think of its use in that manner. I think it maybe useful for showing outcome of things outside of wiki. Although I somewhat agree on large participation discussions, it may help see where we stand on the issue, I still have reservations about using for Wiki related discussions/votes, per my comments above.
Iff it is only used for external outcomes, I would probably support. I would say that it could be used on some Wiki related discussion if there were guidelines, but I feel that borders
m:instruction creep.
∞Who?¿?20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Just to explain bit better why deleting the template is useful in this case: Basically, every time this template is transcluded, it violates
WP:NOT, or, (if you're actually a sane human being), it violates basic wiki-principles. So by keeping it either blanked or deleted, you kill a large number of birds violations with one stone. Everyone can at least blank a page, so I'm not sure why the first people to spot this problem hadn't already done so.
Perhaps becuase some people realize that their personal opinions and interpretations are not sacrosanct, and that following the correct process (instead of imposing said beliefs upon the entire community) might facilitate productive discourse, thereby bringing to light alternative perceptions and previously overlooked possibilities. —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing. Everyone has this power, so that means you too. Apply sane reasoning to the problem, and negotiate what you want. or just go ahead and do it :-) You actually applied some of that power today, where you got me to temporarily undelete the template and subst an example here. But note the reasoning above as well, that's why I'm keeping it deleted for the rest. If you'd like a copy of the template someplace if you need to examine it further for some reason, give me a yell. :-)
Kim Bruning19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
All of your arguments are based upon the (contested) claim that the template unequivocally violates
WP:NOT. What gives you the authority to issue such a proclamation? —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Wikipedia is not supposed to be run by votes, no, but this template doesn't pretend that it is. It is simply a tool used to highlight the results of a vote. I'm afraid that voting is commonplace and very much a part of Wikipedia, however - you're taking place in one now. Voting happens all over and is not always a bad thing - it can show consensus much easier than lots of text can. Note that I've not voted on whether this should be deleted, so this isn't a comment on that.
violet/riga(t)19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
If there are votes cropping up all over wikipedia, then there is a significant danger of it failing to be a pedia for very much longer. There was a reason not to have votes, remember? Anyway, I'm glad you're taking over this particular tfd. Have a nice day.
Kim Bruning20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, but rename to something less specific (such as {{ratio bar}}), and avoid using the template in most (if not all) voting situations (especially those in which more than two options exist). I initially voted (yes, voted) to delete, but
Dragons flight has convinced me that this template has legitimate applications. —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment from some of the input from Kim above, it's pretty clear to me that this is an example of Kim's violating the
WP:POINT guideline, in particular when he says things like "Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing" which seems to imply that his actions here are meant in part to teach us a lesson about how Wikipedia should be run.
Courtland01:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm actually an individual who favours precision over nebulous scenarios, and this vote bar is an expression of my desire for precision. The term "consensus" on Wikipedia really needs to be rigourously defined. And nowhere in this template did I say that the numbers it shows are binding. It is only an indicator, nothing more. Admins do not, and must not, have to rely on it alone to decide how to close a poll. If they want to read through all of the opinions, then there is nothing I can do about that. All I did was create a simple indication of what the scenario looks like at the present time. Denelson8301:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment the recent discussion and series of polls on extending the CSD drew quite a bit of participation and comments, as well as a number of votes. Peopele were fairly claer, IMO, that they were reluctant to extend the CSD overly, and that they expected the current CSD to be treated rather strictly, not bent. This was not a speedy deletion candidate.
DES(talk)02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
comment. Had a chat with Denelson83 today. He pointed out uses for the template outside wikipedia: namespace (for example:
1995 Quebec referendum). Ok, well I agree with that (as also per Lifeisunfair and Dragons Flight). The template will have to be carefully gaurded against abuse in the wikipedia: namespace though. As long as people do that, I'm ok with it.
Kim Bruning03:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is just another thing that will mislead people into thinking it is. --
Cyrius|
✎03:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. Should be deleted for the exact same reasons as was
Template:Vfd votes. -
Sean Curtin 03:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)Weak keep if renamed. As long as we try to keep this out of the realm of VfD and other WP votes and polls, it's fine by me. As a nitpick, I think that the bar itself ought to be shorter in height; it seems almost like a space filler on my screen. -
Sean Curtin 22:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
After seeing it in use in an article, I am now further opposed to this template. It's one of those cases there a picture is not worth a thousand words, and in fact, doesn't provide a better "picture" than the raw numbers or percentages. If it could be done as a bar graph it fould be helpful, but not as this template.
BlankVerse∅07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong delete, see
WP:CENT for two polls regarding usage of such templates, to which people were heavily opposed.
Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Here. Let me give you another way to use this vote bar. I will use it as a summary to list reasons given for keeping this template contrasted with reasons given for deleting it. Do not interpret it as anything more than an innocent summary. And I sincerely hope this isn't an example of a
WP:POINT. Denelson8308:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
{{vote bar
|Option 1=Reasons to delete | Voting for option 1=7 | Percent for option 1=(77.8%) | Color for option 1=Red | Header color for option 1=#fcc
|Option 2=Reasons to keep | Voting for option 2=2 | Percent for option 2=(22.2%) | Color for option 2=#0c0 | Header color for option 2=#cfc
}}
Violates "WP is not a democracy" doctrine
May influence opinions
It simply IS a template
Bad choice of name
Looks bad where it is used
Gives illusion consensus is not used
May get overused, causing general clutter
Other uses besides internal votes
Acts as a summary
Rename to {{ratio bar}} as per Denelson83's suggestion. While I agree for a number of reasons that its use in VfD pages would be at best unhelpful, there are a number of other reasons to want to use such a bar. My only worry about the template is that the use of '▲' (U+25B2 Black Up-Pointing Triangle) might cause some problems for older browsers, but that's a question of the template's comntenet, not its apprpriateness.
Caerwine22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
My 2 cents: I don't think admins should speedily delete anything while their VfD lag time still lasts, unless they can point to a specific
WP:CSD rule. To quote
WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority [...] it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." (I see the template has already been undeleted, but I still want to be clear on this issue.) (No vote on the current template) --
IByte23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: A way we could discourage abuse of this template would be to make sure it is only inserted into appropriate articles with the "subst" qualifier. Denelson8323:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. As a very visual person, something like this would always help me understand arguments better. Its not just for policy, and I don't see what this has to do with being a democracy or not.
Páll(Die pienk olifant)23:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Eh... wait. How would a two-colored bar help you understand arguments? Summaries of arguments people are using are always helpful and we should certainly use them more, but they don't need two-colored bars.
JRM ·
Talk23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Some people are more easily able grasp information in a visual manner than a textual one. There's no harm is using graphics where appropriate and there are situations where I feel this template would be appropriate.
Caerwine00:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
That's not quite what I asked—I don't understand what information is being grasped in this way. How many people voted for A and how many for B, yes, obviously. But Páll said it would help him understand arguments better, and that I don't quite get. In case of the ratio bar, it seems obvious you could drop the whole bar and keep just the summaries (mirrored on either side of the page if you like). Counting the "percentage" of reasons offered isn't meaningful in any sense. If this is something you "just can't get" if you're a textual person, I apologize; I'm not trying to belittle or disparage arguments here.
JRM ·
Talk02:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This is what I mentioned earlier, if anyone is using a visual aide to get the feel of where the discussion is going, it could be inaccurately persuading their vote on the discussion. If I do not understand a particular discussion, or do not feel like getting involved by reading the entire thing, than I don't get involved! The visual meter destroys the whole point of the discussion. I would only want such a bar to stay around if NOT ever used on Wiki related discussions, ie. presidential polls and such.
∞Who?¿?06:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Userfy. OK, it's just a template and I mean it no harm, but I'm not going to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the underlying issue. If Denelson feels strongly about stewarding it, he should adopt it in his userspace. It's not even good on polls, as these are supposed to gauge whether an idea meets overwhelming (dis)approval, so you avoid arguing about things nobody really wants to argue about. If there isn't, you don't need a colored bar to tell you that's the case (as it'll be blindingly obvious), you need to poll on something else. Ad hoc, schmad hoc. Yes to attempts at clarifying large, unclear opinion dumps. No to attempts at highlighting where the percentages lie. And we really should go back to the drawing table on the whole "Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's run by consensus" thing, as consensus is hard while democracy is easy. I get the feeling people aren't seeing any added benefit to consensus (or aren't seeing consensus at all) and are thinking this democracy thing looks pretty good in other places, so why not use it here?
JRM ·
Talk23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. Even if this isn't ever used on VFD (and, if it is, it should be used only in extremely crowded VFD discussions), it has numerous applications in the rest of the encyclopedia, as noted above. Any time it is necessary to visually display a ratio between two figures, this template enables it to be done easily. Also, I feel that Kim Bruning's speedy delete was highly inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia policy.
Firebug00:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Oh dear. So according to you I didn't just apply policy properly, I actually violated it. I think I just arrived here from an alternate universe or something, this is so wierd :-/ . *Sigh* very well, could you point out which policy you think I violated?
Kim Bruning19:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I am now getting an uncomfortable amount of mutually contradictory information regarding this policy.
This Wikipedia Signpost article includes a tally of keep vs. delete votes for the Wikipedians for Decency WikiProject. I attempted to apply the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" doctrine to it by removing the tally, and here's the message I got from the editor of the Signpost:
"As I understand it,
Template:Vote bar was rejected because it was unneeded, and it assumed, in many cases, that there was a specific spot between keep and delete. All I did is report on what the unofficial vote tally was. That is not wrong, nor is it a double-standard. If you wanted to create your own page where you kept tallies on controversial votes, that would be fine.
"In any event, please do not edit the Signpost unless to fix an inaccuracy or a typo. I at least deserved the respect of having you talk to me on my talk page or in the Newsroom, rather than finding out on a Discussion page 3 days after you made the change.
ral315 05:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"
With this message, I am now seriously opposing the policy against internal vote tallies on Wikipedia. There is clearly a hypocritical atmosphere here, and it isn't fair.
COMMENT er, what does this have to do with VfD? IT's a bar comparing two amounts out of a whole, could be used anywhere... like in the election pages comparing the amounts a Democrat or a Republican gets.
132.205.3.2015:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. I know I'm probably on the wrong side of the crowd here, but there are other uses for this template than a VfD vote. Please consider that before deleting this template. Misuse of the template doesn't mean the template is useless. --
Titoxd23:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete.. As per others, this has the potential to be used to undermine
WP:NOT a Democracy by giving a certain person's interpretation of discussion the 'color' of an official ballot poll. Also:
Encourages the fallacy of representing discrete data (numbers of votes) as if they were continuous in nature. A bar graph in column form would be better, pictograph ideal.
Doesn't seem to adequately represent contests with more than 2 parties where a plurality 'wins' the contest.
All stated "legitimate use" examples would be equally or better served by using Microsoft Excel, Apple Keynote, or similar Open Source packages to generate a chart suitable to the article and upload as an image. Template programming mechanics are simply not well-suited to this use. (Seems like hammering a nail using a banana)
Excuse me, since when is Microsoft Excel or anything else by Microsoft an Open Source package? Or did you mean an open source package of similar functionality?
DES(talk)19:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes I realize that most of those are criticisms calling for improvement rather than deletion, but I think that these shortcomings detract from any legitimate use such that it cannot justify the potential for negative use per the first reason.
Kwh 19:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP This thing is neat... now if only I could figure out how to use it :\. Whether or not majority votes are banned or whatever has nothing to do with this template. Just doing it for fun on a talk page (as it obviously has its uses there) is by itself enough reason to KEEEEEEEPPPRyan NortonT |
@ |
C20:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)reply
{{vote bar
|Option 1=Good reasons to delete | Voting for option 1=1 | Percent for option 1=(10%) | Color for option 1=Red | Header color for option 1=#fcc
|Option 2=Good reasons to keep | Voting for option 2=9 | Percent for option 2=(90%) | Color for option 2=#0c0 | Header color for option 2=#cfc
}}
Keep Can be misused, and often shouldn't be used. Might be useful on occasions, and I see no benefit to deleting it. And
WP:WIN does not allow admins to delete articles that contravene it. And the definition of "vote" as "majority vote" is fascinating, and ridiculous. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that. I guess Kim might argue that it still has thorns, but that's his problem :-).
[[smoddy]]22:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. Useful for many purposes, especially for summarising closed VfD discussions. --
Misza13 17:40:58, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Keep. Cool!
Vacuumc 02:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 21 August AM to 3 September AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 13 days
Delete: A convenient and systematic way to crowd the article namespace with suggestions for editors, which (last I checked) were deprecated. Also, if you're going to add this template to a page, you might as well just fulfill the suggestion and skip the extra step. --
Smack (
talk)
15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, agree with the above. -
SimonP 15:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Might be reasonable if placed on a talk page. Presumably should be placed only by an editor who is not sure what the proepr subcat is. weak keep if restricted to talk pages and properly documented.
DES(talk)16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, but only if the template is moved from every article it is currently on to the articles' talk pages. If not moved, then delete.
BlankVerse∅21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. The template is used at the bottom of the article, onobtrusively. The chemistry category now has 172 articles. If I knew the appropriate subcategory for these articles, I would go ahead and take care of it myself. The category has had the "cleancat" tag, on its talk page, since May 1.
Maurreen(talk)22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is a good idea but it's better taken from the category (and WikiProject:chemistry) than by sticking a template on each related article and asking 'can someone else please help'.
Radiant_>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Questions: For the sake of curiosity, how does this template have less value or make any more of a problem than, for example, the stub or wikifacation templates, when those needs are evident in the articles? And for the sake of efficiency, can anyone suggest a more effective method to accomplish the same thing, especially for those categories without a project? For example,
Category:Computing got
Template:Cleancat on 22 June. I requested help with
Category:Computing at
Talk:Computing on 27 July. The main cat still has more than 150 articles.
Maurreen(talk)01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Your time would probably be better spent recategorizing than slapping a template on each article. I don't really believe there is such a thing as overpopulation of a category. And if someone doesn't know where to categorize an article, we would want them to put it in a general category so that someone more knowledgable could come along and recategorize it properly. —
Mike 02:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think putting a template on the category would be useful (e.g. "this category is getting too large, please move items to its subcats"). Cleaner-uppers could more easily work from there.
Radiant_>|< 13:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
comment: 150 articles ... that is certainly not an example of overpopulation of a category in my opinion. On the other hand, 1,500 would present more of a problem.
Courtland 01:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
It usually requires significant expertise in a subject to expand a stub, and it can take a lot of work to wikify an article. IMHO, fussing with categories is fairly quick and requires only superficial knowledge. What we need is a tag placed in the category page that marks it as too large. --
Smack (
talk)
02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
It might be useful to generalize this to accept a parameter to the category. Or perhaps simply a template which says: This article is not categorized specifically enough. Or perhaps not. As with article text, people will come along and fix this. Eventually. --
MarSch17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete Too specific. Not very useful. -- Reinyday, 15 August 2005
Delete. The template {{verylarge}} should be used as a general solution; this template places the category into the "cleanup" cateogory
Category:Overpopulated categories.
Courtland 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't seem to be used by any pages in the main namespace. --
Ixfd64 06:08, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
Delete - one should be able to put a template on the category page that needs cleaning out, which would then automatically propagate as a note on the pages categorized there. Doing this manually, and for one specific category only, is not the right way. --
Joy [shallot]22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment I have acted on the suggestion of the template in those cases where it had been placed on articles. I have also placed a note on the Talk page of the template asking whether it has now completed in the service it was designed to perform. I still think that this can be deleted, but it is stated to perform a service and I'd like to determine whether suporters for its being kept believe it has in fact served its purpose and is no longer required in the clean-up arsenal.
Courtland01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment We get a lot of people placing articles into the general chemistry category because they know it is chem-related, but a lot of people are hesitant to categorise it any further (we have hundreds of sub-categories!). As such, it is useful. My concern is, how are the people (who are unfamiliar with chem) to know that this template exists? If there are plenty of people who would use it, we should keep it. If it's too obscure/hard to find, then delete it.
Walkerma22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
This template is overkill and an inappropriate adoption of the future events template. There's nothing "speculative" or unexpected about construction plans. If construction has occurred, there's nothing dramatic that should happen. The information contained in this article is essentially useless. The articles of every country in the world, every world head of state, and every living person covered in this encyclopedia is in more danger of being outdated that some building under construction. --
Jiang11:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete agree with the above. Any good article should already make clear what items are just proposals. -
SimonP 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, there is speculation, in
Burj Dubai's case. --
WikiFan04Talk 22:56, 25 Aug 2005 (CDT)
Delete It must be clear from the text that it is discussing something that will happen in the future. If it is retained it should be toned down to be less visually intrusive.
Saga City 06:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An article about proposed construction is not speculative. The construction is proposed, and the proposition itself is worthy of encyclopedic note. --
Mm3517322:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Used by
Template:Taxobox sectio entry as an inserted template. The content used to be [[Section (biology)|Section]] but is now just Section. I do not see the purpose of this template in its current state, the text can just be subst in the other template.
∞Who?¿?09:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
keep. It is part of a series of templates for the taxobox that allow the taxobox to be more easily copied to other language 'pedias. If the nominator had contacted any of the editors before making the nomination, they would have know that and probably not nominated it. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I only nominated it because it only contains plain text with no variables now. It seems that can be subst instead. Also, I did contact both editors after the nomination, which is standard practice. I would have contacted before if it were using a set of variables but seemedunused obsolete in that format.
∞Who?¿?19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Er, I can't see how this is useful, all it does is add a category to the main namespace to do with editing, and on a minor issue - the order of categories?!?!?.
Dunc|
☺11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep It is used by
Pearle and
Whobot when doing mass re-cats. It checks for bad interwiki links, and labels them for human intervention. (I think I got everything, Beland could explain better).
∞Who?¿?20:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. This template is in active use. It may seem simple, but it's a convenient way to find all the articles in recent runs where a bot couldn't properly edit an article. These articles need manual attention so they can be automatically edited in the future, and so that they comply with Wikipedia style standards. It's not the sort order of the categories that's checked, it's that the interwiki and category and stub tags can be parsed properly, and that they are at the end of the article. Parse failures (which are what is tagged) are usually an indication that the article is messed up, often that it needs to be split into multiple articles. I usually get around to fixing these within a few days of doing a run, but I do need some way of finding them. --
Beland01:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
In which case, you create a list of affected pages and dump it elsewhere - don't use the categorisation system, which is for something else entirely!
Dunc|
☺16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Mentioned in the discussion on {{Seemain}}, it seems prudent to separate the discussions since people probably have different opinions here. Delete these, there are overly many of them and they're not very pointful.
Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep 2, 3, and 4. For lists larger than 4 I think there needs to be considered a split to the article section to which the list is attached. In cases where such a split is not warranted, then either a section "see also" or reference to a sectionized "see also" would be useful. In fact, the creation of a {{seemain4plus}} could be considered which would be identical to {{seemain4}} except it would include a reference to the page's "see also" section using an internal bookmark-link to that section via
#See also.
Courtland 00:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The claim about {{main2}} accomodating any number of text links is based upon {{main2|Article1|Article2]], [[Article3]], [[Article 4}} (
SEWilco02:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Comment: For the record, I strongly object to
SEWilco's attempt to "cancel" this vote (which happens to pertain to templates that SEWilco created) because
Radiant neglected to engage in the virtually pointless task of inserting {{tfd}} tags that no one will ever see. The {{ccm}} example (below) is a different story, but I doubt that the outcome (keep) is going to change. —
Lifeisunfair17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: If there should be no notification then have the TfD process modified. Perhaps speedy deletion of templates would save a lot of pointless consideration. (
SEWilco20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC))reply
I don't claim that "there should be no notification," but the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into unused templates doesn't notify anyone of anything.
Radiant's failure to complete this busywork is a flimsy excuse to "cancel" a debate (particularly one concerning templates of your own creation). Wikipedia rules generally should be followed, but common sense should prevail over a miniscule technicality. —
Lifeisunfair21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Of course I did! They had to be orphaned before the {{tfd}} tag could be added (per your insistence). For the record, the article count was as follows:
I see that you just reverted my edits. Do you not understand that this disrupts legitimate articles by inserting a message that most readers won't understand (because there's no obvious "template" below the text)? —
Lifeisunfair22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
What is your understanding of "notification" which requires hiding messages? You also did not mention your older similar "minor" edits. (
SEWilco22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC))reply
The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. You minor-edited articles to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates. How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all? (
SEWilco23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC))reply
"The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor."
Yes, and that's precisely what I did. My edit summary for all ten templates was "tfd tag," and I didn't mark any of these edits as minor.
"If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead."
And yet, when I moved {{seemain2}}'s TfD notice to the talk page, you reverted. Evidently, you're determined to disrupt fifteen articles via the insertion of a contextually nonsensical message. And over what do you wage this battle? A template (which you created, of course) that's patently redundant with {{main2}}. I mean, do you even deny that?
"You minor-edited articles"
The above instructions refer to the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into the templates, not edits to the articles that contain them! I marked these as minor, because the replacement of one template with another that generates virtually identical output has no major effect on the article.
"to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates."
That was the point! As I've explained, this was to avoid disrupting the articles via the insertion of a message that makes absolutely no sense to readers (because it refers to a seemingly nonexistent "template"). Earlier in the month, I removed a few other instances, which I stumbled upon when attempting to orphan {{seemain}} — the parent template (which you blanked and proposed for deletion after an earlier TfD consensus was to redirect to {{main}}).
"How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all?"
You hid the TfD notices. And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted. I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process. (
SEWilco02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC))reply
"You hid the TfD notices."
I'm the one who added them! The fact that they aren't displayed as prominently as you would prefer (id est, disrupting numerous articles without conveying any useful information) doesn't mean that they're "hidden."
"And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted."
I honestly don't know what the above statement is supposed to mean.
"I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process."
Redirect 2-5 and Delete the rest For brevity's sake it would best if the core title was {{main}} and not {{seemain}}. Once one gets past five articles I can't see the utility. {{main4|Article1|Article2|Article3|Article 4}} has the advantage of being more intutitive and shorter than the kludge involving {{main2}}. It has the additional advantage that if it is decided to add a conjunction to the main series of templates, it won't break. {{seemain10}} is an interesting attempt at designing an adaptable template, but until or unless templates can be designed that will gracefully accept a variable number of arguments, I can't say I like {{seemain10}}'s approach.
Caerwine21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: I prefer the text on {{seemain}} and they are not equivalent; except to those who don't mind having "See Main article", with inconsistent capitalization, all over the place.
Septentrionalis02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. This type of message intimidates me every time I'm sent it. Is it really necessary to send the uploader of an allegedly-copyrighted image such a harsh warning every time such an image is put on
WP:PUI? Denelson8322:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
It's not intended to be intimidating, it's intended to give the uploader a chance to defend her image. Keep, but please reword if you find it harsh or intimidating.
Septentrionalis22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, such a defence would be utterly pointless, as "fair use" is still a very touchy issue here. As well, it's messages like this that indirectly led to the
RFC against me. Please note that at the time I write this, my wikimood is reading -6 (ornery). Such minor criticism left on my talk page could send it even lower. Denelson8322:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I've seen IfD's for other things than copyright. However, if filing this has reduced your Wikistress, good; I trust editing the template will take care of the rest of it.
Septentrionalis22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. If it's harsh (and frankly I dislike the box around it; it could just be a regular paragraph) then make it less so. But it's only fair that the uploader of an image be informed of its being deleted, so this template is entirely necessary. --
Finlay McWalter |
Talk 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think most Wikipedians have thick enough skin to endure a teeny bit of criticism. However, it could use a de-uglification (simple text would be nice). —
Dan |
Talk22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep because it is commonly used and useful, and saying you're in a bad mood isn't an excuse for it,
Denelson83.
Superm401 |
Talk 22:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
While it's ugly and fairly unpleasant to recieve, this template is one of the few that gets nominated here that actually serves a useful purpose.
→Raul654 22:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I find this factual, not harsh. If you do reformat or reword this, similer changes should probably be made to {{idw-cp}} which i use far more often.
DES(talk)00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep and Edit so as to be less obtrusive. There is little need for a message any more obtrusive than the {{TFD}} message. This template seems quite an overkill and I can see it's deep-sixing wikimood (or elevating wikistress) with each application. As an aside, I think that the {{CFD}} and {{VFD}} notices could be significantly reduced in size/invasiveness without reducing their impact or noteworthiness as well.
Courtland 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) input altered from "delete" to "edit"
Courtland14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. Revise it, if you feel like it, but something like this is required for notifying the uploader of an image listed on
WP:IFD per the image deletion guidelines. I know why this requirement exists and I'm still not convinced it is strictly necessary, but as long as the requirement to notify is in place, we need some template to put on uploaders' talk pages. --
MarkSweep07:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. The only change that I'd make to the template is to add a second parameter to list the reason why the image was nominated for deletion.
BlankVerse∅07:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep as it's quite useful. (added without signature, but determined to be from
User:ScribeOfTheNile on consulting page history)
Keep. Reword it if you have to. But having a template around makes it easier to warn uploaders about upcoming image deletion. -
Mgm|
(talk) 04:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as it is useful for an uploader to be informed if an image they uploaded is IFD'd. --
Wikiacc(talk) 00:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Note: I tried to make it a little more pleasant. I made it a slightly more pleasant color (prisons are often painted a pale green as it is a relaxing color), added a "thank you", made the font readible (why so small?), and got rid of the big bad bold "WARNING". I think it still serves its purpose, and won't give anyone a heart attack. --
Fastfission22:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Are we all meshugga? Crazy people who shouldn't be let out of the box? Stay on the farm, don't bother the nice people, now come back inside for din-din and take our meds?
I can't believe I'm reading a proposal to delete a tool to provide notice that something has been proposed to be deleted! Oy! and oy again! And on what grounds? It intimidates me, it's too harsh -- so, of course, there is nothing at all that we can do except stick the thing in the trash! Never mind that Somebody might actually want to know!
Tsa on this crazy Project and tsa on you crazy people! This goes beyond bad-faith; you want to take the tools away from the workers! Maybe you don't like the way those tools are used? You can't talk to other people, ask them maybe to use the tool another way? All you can do is smash and destroy! What next, you'll start
Wikipedia:Words for Deletion so people can't even say what they think!? —
Xiong熊talk* 22:41, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
I've observed this template, and feel it to be redundant with {[tl|test1}} through {{test3}}. I also feel it is worded a bit harshly and can be construed as
biting the newbies. It also causes confusion when a person edits the section on a page this template is added to. --
Blu Aardvark | (talk) |
(contribs)04:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, doesn't strike me as harsh (which is a fixable problem anyway), and naming the article involved is a good idea (especially for shared IPs). I don't see what the problem with section-editing would be. ~~ N (
t/
c)
21:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Overkill template, with two other templates included (which are of value individually) and a list of seasons, with only one article done. Large, bulky and next to useless, as if needed, the two templates can be placed seperately and the list of seasons converted into a wikilink of
template:Football in Portugal table cells, which I've struggled earlier to make barely usable. After FiP is deleted, the "table cells" template could have that part of the name removed, and used for division and federation articles
wS;
✉01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, too heavy handed for its purpose. With that purpose only really being one article, it could just be subst:ed. -
Splash19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although I've never seen this before, any template that is a redirect outside of the Template namespace should be a Speedy delete candidate.
BlankVerse∅12:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: It was created as a bit of a joke - the idea being to substitute it into a user's talk page. I've recreated a shorter, more useful version. Edit it mecilessly, but please don't delete it on sight.
Alphaxτεχ10:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This template have not been deleted but removed from all articles by
Gdr. The template is a navigational template, it have been discussed before and now GDR thinks there is a consensus since one user was agains and one for removal adding his agains that was a consensus, so he used his bot to remove (not delete) it. See discussion at
Template talk:Sharks. I have stated my point there as has he, or
stan opinion that GDR agrees with. I can not start a edit war with a admin with a bot so I found this place and though this was a good place to discuss. Also see my suggestion to add nav links under language links? not sure if possible, probably better than this template but that is not the vote. This vote is either for deletion and not usage of the template or for keeping and adding the template back to the articles where it was removed from.
Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Is good for navigational purposes, much easier to use than category and tax boxes, especially for new users.
Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This template is currently a very, very partial list of the 350+ total possible sharks. Either it will always be rather incomplete, or it will be H--U--G--E--! Either way, it shouldn't be a navigation template. The template should be converted to a list, which can be grouped, annotated, illustrated, etc., and then a link to the new
List of sharks can be added to the "See also" section of each shark article.
BlankVerse∅15:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with BlankVerse. The template can only contain small percentage of sharks, so a list is more appropriate in this case.
The JPS16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep per Goethean. --
WikiFan04Talk 20:14, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)
Delete as per BlankVerse. It may be "Aesthetically pleasing" now but not when there are hundreds of links on it in the future if kept.
RedWolf 22:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be to listify: therefore I have moved the template to "list of sharks" and editors can do what they want with it.
Dan100 (
Talk) 11:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 1 August PM to 10 August PM — 9 daysRemoved from TFD 10 August PM — 9 days
Delete: This template is unnecessary. We already have one for the City of Chicago and one for the state of Illinois which lists both the Chicagoland region and most of the cities in the regions. Having potentially three regional templates on a page ({{Chicago}} {{Illinois}} and {{Chicagoland}}) just seems excessive. Plus, the template isnt even fell formatted. --Gpyoungtalk03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Parts of Chicagoland lie within Indiana and Wisconsin. —
Instantnood 14:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. The template is informative. The easy solution is for {{Chicago}}to replace {{Chicagoland}} in articles about Chicago. --
goethean ॐ
15:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I think the base problem here needs a better solution. Very often you have a city and other governments that frequently go by the name of the city or other names. There is a lot of overlap. I hope this discussion becomes a step on the road to fixing the overall problem. In looking at the template in question, I don't see it as a big issue so I'd vote Keep but maybe someone needs to make sure that only one of the two local ones listed above is used in an article.
Vegaswikian19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
OpposeKeep. As Instantnood mentioned, this template is helpful for those regions of Chicagoland stretching into other states. --
BaronLarf 18:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
OpposeKeep. Chicagoland comprises a significant proportion of the Illinois population as well as serves a navigational purpose for many chicagoland related pages. — oo64eva (Alex)(
U |
T |
C) @ 18:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Could people please use Keep or Delete, rather than Oppose? It makes it harder to know if you are opposing the templates nomination (i.e. want to Keep it) or opposing it's existence (i.e. want to Delete it). I think it is usually the former, but I would rather not have to interpret every comment just to be sure. Thanks.
Dragons flight 21:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
But Chicagoland is defined; see the
Chicagoland article for the counties of which it is comprised. If someone added Rockford thinking it was in Chicagoland, they were simply mistaken.
HollyAm22:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, well-meaning, but inappropriate way to generate
taxoboxes. Currently linked by two articles that I will soon have converted.
Circeus 16:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Conditional Keep-It seems like a good idea and a good thing to have. If it isnt quite up to speed, I think it can definatly be fixed and brought up to standard. I dont quite understand your link about the Taxoboxes, so that is why I voted conditional keep. If you can show that there is a better way to do it, I will change my vote. --Gpyoungtalk17:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Assembling a taxobox can be tricky. A template that handled the more common cases would be helpful. But this tempalte is rather more limited than its name implies. This templace creates a taxobox for a single animal species. It does not handle plants or fungi or other non-animal species. It does not handle taxoboxes for a group larger than a singel species (a family or order, say). It does not handle taxoboxes when any of the less common levels of classification should be used (sub-class or super-class, sub-phylem, etc). If this is to be retained, than the usage of its parameters, and these limitatiosn should be throughly documented, with a link to the page where general taxobox format is described, and its name should be changed to something less general sounding than Scientific classification. Perhaps
Template:Animal species taxobox. Conditional keep if these changes are made. By the way, I don't think tempalte syntax is up to a single tempalte that can handle a fully general taxobox, unless there are tricks to template syntax i don't know yet.
DES(talk)12:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period for comment 5 August PM to 11 August PM — 6 daysRemoved from TFD 12 August PM — 7 days
The template
Template:Infobox French Région was used for only 3 of the 26 régions of France, whereas the other 23 régions have each a specific infobox which is more detailed and better laid out than the generic
Template:Infobox French Région, so I am puting specific infoboxes for the three remaining régions. It's better to have specific infoboxes for each région rather than a generic infobox for all the régions because each région has its own peculiarities, and one generic infobox cannot do the job (some régions need footnotes, some don't, some régions are made up of several départements, while some régions are monodepartmental, etc.).
Hardouin15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Didn't all Regions used to use
Template:Infobox French Région? It is fairly easy to add additional fields to the infobox. If an infobox can be made for all countries it should be easy for French regions.-- User:Docu
Like Gpyoung rightly said, sometimes people try too hard to standardize things, for no real reason. Individual infoboxes take more time to design in the first place, but then they are much more flexible in use than a generic infobox. Besides, I would like to point out that the infoboxes for French régions were all designed with the same format, so if you check several French régions, you'll have the impression the infobox is a unique standardized infobox, whereas in fact it is specific to each région. So we get both the benefit of standardization (uniform format) and the benefit of specific infoboxes (flexibility).
Hardouin16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, as they stand right now Alsace infobox is unneeded specialization. All you have to do is add the links to the files into the french region template and it will give you the present Alsace box.
grenグレン20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
comment I wouldn't suggest botting this as suggested ... there are less than 250 uses and the likelihood is that more than one of the bot replacements would result in some manner of nonsense being writ. Would it be possible to subst: the existing uses if the template gets deleted, which would maintain the status quo on the articles that currently use it while removing it from circulation for new uses?
Courtland01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. That being voted, I'll say that "worrying" is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air.
Courtland 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
3 to 1 is not exactly "consensus", or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. —
Lowellian (
talk) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Let's reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the "old" template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn't make any difference. --
Blu Aardvark | (talk) |
(contribs)07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redundancy stinks. --
jiyTalk 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. -
Splash19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they're practically identical. Anyone who's voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don't need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up.
Keep. I don't understand why people want to delete this. It's not identical to
Template:Otheruses, so it's not redundant, right? —
Lowellian (
talk) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
comment No, it's an OK way to do disambiguation; it's just an inelegant way of doing it. There are few cases where application of the concept the template targets is needed (as noted below) and those few cases can be handled without the use of a template.
Courtland01:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu
Please keep. There were some terrible revert wars over exactly how the disambig notice at the top of
Macedonia should be worded before this template was finally agreed on for that article. I really don't want to see a revert war over its replacement should this template be deleted. It has a use. Please keep.
Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
comment I came very close to changing my vote to Keep, but then considered that an ad hoc disambiguation statement to handle the very contentious issues that you've very rightly highlighted is as appropriate as a template, that the revert wars should not start over just because the template disappears because the text can be recapitulated exactly as it appears without the template being used.
Courtland01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
comment it can be done with {{dablink}} or {{for}} instead. -- User:Docu
Delete. The author responded to questions about the template on the talk page by removing all text from the template. It was not clear what purpose it was intended to serve. Since it is empty, there is probably no reason to keep it.
Vegaswikian20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I'm not bothered whether this is kept or not, but I've re-added the content that was removed, while it's on TFD, and while it's still used by so many pages.
sjorford→•←22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
The content was not removed while it was on TfD, it was removed before. I think this needs to be returned to the last version before your change. As a piece of additional information, the new
Wikipedia:Wikiproject Las Vegas has not included this template in their project, likely because of the problems with the version that was not blanked.
Vegaswikian22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
But this makes no sense - what are people voting on? Voting on a blank template is meaningless - if it's going to stay blank, just speedy it. If you're going to vote on it, then obviously there's a possibility it could be kept, so people are voting on what it's going to look like after the vote. Anyway, that's not even the reason I unblanked it - just seeing the message "this template has been blanked..." at the bottom of one of the casino articles looked ugly and out of place.
sjorford→•←08:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Since it is likely to be blanked after this vote, maybe it should have been a speedy since the vote was about the template at the time it was nominated. If you look at the editors talk page that created this template, you will see a long list of images posted by the editor that have been deleted. While it does not affect this vote, it does may one wonder.
Vegaswikian23:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep It is very useful. It is much easier than finding other pages that have this information. I use this template allot. When a person reading about casinos on the strip, it makes sense that there should be an easy way to browse to other casinos that strike one's fancy. This is the type of thing that makes Wikipedia a pleasure. It happens to not take up very much space at the bottom of a page, either. Sherm. August 24, 2005
I agree with you that ease of browsing is great, but the category system can do the job. The top of each article has a hyperlink to
Category:Casinos in Las Vegas. You click on the link and you can browse to other casinos. I think that's reasonably easy. It also gives you one-click access to
Category:Las Vegas, Nevada (for non-casino points of interest) and
Category:Casinos in Nevada (for casinos outside Las Vegas), both of which are likely meanderings for the reader who wants to browse.
JamesMLane11:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period for comment 11 August AM to 24 August AM — 13 daysRemoved from TFD 25 August AM — 14 days
Keep:I don't know what you're talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer? why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it's not like it's mine, or that I'm making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they're almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. --
Amr Hassan07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the "external links" section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don't see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. --
Blu Aardvark | (talk) |
(contribs)07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, Wikipedia's purpose is not to advertise other websites.
Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This looks very similer to {{
imdb title}} (
t/
l) or {{
isfdb name}} (
t/
l) to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different?
DES(talk)12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link.
DES(talk)12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete in its current form. It's not very useful and does seem to be vanity.--
naryathegreat |
(talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per
DES.
Carioca 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think it's useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.--
DizerX13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, as per
DES.
Joeyconnick 17:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete because the link is only in the form of domain.com/name (such as the one seen on
Sin City page) instead of a harder-to-type form such as IMDb's domain.com/title/ttnumber. Having this template does not make anything easier and does not provide standardization of a complex URL (since the URL is not complex at all). A link to SHH can simply be a regular link, and does not require any special templates. --
Hcblue02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, brilliant, this is just the template for the
creation science article (and I'm sure a few others). The article itself is usually fine, as critism and supporting arguments have their own sections, but the intro has been causing a lot of problems. Is this template documented? --
Ec5618 11:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep' - and use more widely. The intro is often the most contentious section, and a template that makes that crystal clear is very useful. The "section" version is not clear enough, IMO, when used to refer to an intro (people may not be clear about what it's referring to).
Rd23213:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
No - put dubious and Pov-section in a page - you'll see the difference. The former is inline, the latter is not - it floats above the line.
Rd23222:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I propose deletion for several reasons: One is that this is a topic that, if not seen as inherently POV, at least attracts many POV-warriors. Furthermore, there is no need for this article series box; the subject is hard to reduce to a few articles, and bound to invite heated debates over what should and should not be included. Right now the articles are quite randomly choosen, and that is the improved version -- in the initial one, transgender was listed as a sexual orientation, and the debate on the talk page did not leave the impression that the maker of said template was much willing to discuss that obvious mistake. This is not the first attempt to do an ASB on this (or closely related) topics; see
Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed) for a discussion of a previous attempt. Much of the criticism applies here, too. --
AlexR13:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
There are also a few lists regarding this and similar topics if one wishes for a more ordered reading guide. --
AlexR13:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is a useful navigational tool and provides a fairly compact organization to much of the relevant knowledge. If important things are missing they should be added and organization improved, not just delete the whole thing. AlexR, most of your argument seems to boil down to "I don't want to fight about what goes in this template", which is not a good reason to delete it. Certainly you wouldn't make the argument that we should delete the article on
homosexuality just cause people will fight over it? Of course there will be disagreements in this area of Wikipedia, can't be helped, but no one is forcing you to participate. Disclaimer: After this was listed for deletion, I editted it to make it less huge and slightly more readible.
Dragons flight 14:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
You are misreading my arguments - the "what goes in it" is just one part of the problem; and unlike an article the real estate space in an ASB is very limited. --
AlexR17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Well I reread your statement including references to "POV-warriors", "heated debate" and what you perceive as a failed discussion on transgender. Forgive me, but I still get the impression that you are complaining primarily about the difficulty in getting people to agree. If you have another argument, could you please try making it a little clearer for me? Also, how many articles do you think it needs? There are already 31 links there. Adding a few more wouldn't hurt, or it could be condensed by linking to list pages covering the appropriate topic, rather than all the pages individually. Still I don't see deletion as an appropriate solution to what I percieve as a content dispute.
Dragons flight 18:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
As I already said, I think the very format of an article series box is unsuitable for this subject - and I linked to a page going into more detail already. Subjects as complex as this one are, in my opinon, much better served by lists and categories; hence, no such ASB is the solution of my choice. (And as can be seen from the article linked above, that is not exactly a position I've only held since yesterday.) And of course the fact that it is an extremely controversial subject does not help, either. Those, however, are two arguments, not one. As for "how many" - that is a pretty irrelevant question. It is which ones go into that are the problem, not how many. Should - for example - such an ASB try to go from "homosexual and heterosexual", or from "gay and lesbian", or maybe from "androphilia and gynophilia"? Cases can be made for all three apporaches, but if they were put into one ASB that think would drown the article. OTOH, if one approach is choosen, it would be entirely appropriate, and from some points of view even necessary, to make a box for the other two approaches. Not a desireable idea, if you ask me. --
AlexR20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep at least for further discussion. I only created it 4 days ago, and I think the principle of a seriesbox is a useful one. It complements, rather than replaces, categories, because it highlights the major articles of the topic. Obviously there will be disagreement about what they are, and maybe about what the topic is, which will be handled in the usual Wikipedia way. (I'm mystified by AlexR's comment about my not being willing to discuss the inclusion of transgender; I'd said 3 days ago "Let's see if there are any more comments".)
Rd23215:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
You are? That link very obviously did not belong there, so what was there to wait about? Nevertheless, I, like you (hopefully), waited, and nothing came. So I removed the entry, but actually, this does not make this ASB any more useful. --
AlexR17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Although
WP:CSL is of unclear status, this does not prevent it being used as a reason for a vote. I think that this particular point from CSL is a good one, so my vote stands. -
Splash17:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Categorify and delete. The inherent POV attraction of this template can be seen already. Here's a question that will be among the first things that's going to attract POV-warriors and trolling: "Why pink?"
TomerTALK 19:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
What is
WP:CSL, Really? I have never heard mention of
WP:CSL before, which is more than a little odd given the number of navigational templates that come through here. There is no tag for {proposed}, {guideline}, {policy}, etc. Further there are abundant examples of navigational templates which wouldn't meet the strict linear series rule. Based on
this discussion, it would in fact appear there is little consensus for that part of the guideline anyway. I am going to bring this issue up at the Village Pump.
Dragons flight 00:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
My comments at the pump are
here.
Dragons flight 01:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Rename ? I don't really know how to do this voting thing. But my vote would be that this is worthy of being kept, but should be renamed to something like 'sexuality' or 'sexual orientation issues'. Because it isn't really about sexual orientation, is it? It's about sexual orientation as it relates to politics and society. If this were about sexual orientation it would contain stuff like "lgpt performers" or "strapons" and stuff. Also, it might make more sense to make this be a separate category page type thing instead of a box that's always hanging there.
Awk22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Bad idea but should be discussed in a more central place.
Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If you do keep this, change the color scheme to something other than pink. To me as a homosexual male that just seems so... stereotypical. :P
Espantajo00:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
bad title and as a result suboptimal cohesion between included articles. Keep, since those are not reasons for deletion as long as it is used. --
MarSch17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's well used and links to various related topics in just the same way that
Template:Christianity does, for example. I don't see any reason to delete it. —
OwenBlacker 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Rename. I generally prefer series boxes above categories, but this one isn't about sexual orientation. It's about homosexuality, with a few token "where does orientation come from" links thrown in, and a link to heterosexuality second to homosexuality. At the very least it should be renamed Template:Homosexuality. It shouldn't exist in its current form at its current location. It could, however, be useful if retooled or shortened. But if it's shortened enough, maybe a category is better, even though I don't like categories. --
Golbez 08:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
As noted on the talk page, I wasn't sure what the focus of it should be - "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality". I still don't.
Rd23222:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't see a reason for this being deleted? The two given in the nomination text are that it is and/or will attract 'POV warriors' but I do not see that we should be forced to delete anything for that reason, else a whole myriad of other articles should be nominated too, the second reason given was that there are too many potential articles which should and/or could be included, are there any which are actually missing from the template which anyone feels should go in? (or visa-versa?) finally the third reason is that a category is more suited to the job, I don't think this is the case personally, I think ASBs allow the main topics to be navigated to much easier. --
Joolz15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Note: My comment was altered (
[1]) to include a vote, usually when someone explicitly writes "Comment:" they don't want it to be counted as a vote either way. Since there's likely to be no response to my questions which would satisfy me enough to vote delete, I will vote keep. --
Joolz16:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep and improve as per comments above. This is just a few days old. Give it a chance improve. If after it fully matures, the template clearly does not work as a navigational tool then it can be deleted. Everything at Wikipedia has the potential for POV abuse. That is one reason why we all edit and watch pages. --
Samuel Wantman19:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Repurpose this template to focus on GLBT/LGBT issues exclusively. This template can and will create serious problems with some heterosexuals and with people who do not support the ideas of sexual orientation. Not saying it's right, just saying it'll happen.—
Kbolino 01:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Improve as per Samuel WantmanSpaltavian 05:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
This thread's been going for nearly a fortnight (and the note at the top of this page says seven days for
consensus). Votes thusfar: Delete: 6; Keep: 12; Rename (inc "Delete or rename" and "keep and rename"): 5.
Looks like there's no consensus to delete, to me, so I'm removing the {{tfd}} tag. —
OwenBlacker 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Period for comment 12 August PM to 24 August PM — 12 daysRemoved from TFD 25 August AM &mdash 12 days
I have no idea how many other of these there are, but I have just noticed them cropping up in
WP:FAC and other places. I think they are as bad as {{object}} and its ilk, which were deleted a few months ago. --
ALoan(Talk)16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
ugly, confusing, don't work right deleteMozzerati 19:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'f your suggesting deletion, please don't give a worthless reason.
Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've said it before, and I fully expect to say it again. TFD is not, at least in my opinion, a way to go about regulating user behavior. If you are offended by colored doodads, then write a style guideline on voting and get consensus approval for it. However, right now there is nothing wrong with these templates and if someone wants to pretty up user or talk space, I know of no consensus saying it is forbidden. While we are at it, I noticed that {{Red}} has actually been used in a number of drug-related articles to create red warning tags.
Dragons flight 20:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have created {{tfd-inline}} for the purposes of having a TFD template that can fit into the flow of text without breaking it into multiple lines. Obviously you can see the effect of this on the red, green, and blue mentions by Septentrionalis above.
Dragons flight 20:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not as bad as the other ones we deleted because comments were made that the images increased load times, that argument can't be made here.
Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. I agree with
Dragons flight.
ALoan should have initiated a discussion regarding the behavior to which he/she objects, instead of attempting to eliminate the legitimate means by which said behavior is accomplished. —
Lifeisunfair16:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep and subst, per Plugwash. If the user is expecting one use for it, they don't want it changing in the future. It is potentially useful for the non-HTML fluent among us. I won't use it, but I have no objection to others using it properly (i.e. in relevant situations and with subst:, as the template call is unnecessary).
[[smoddy]]23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment using subst on templates like this is a double edged sword, on the one hand it reduces server load slightly (yes i know netoholic has been crusading against templates on the basis of a very vauge comment by jamesday but when i actually tried to speak to jamesday about the issue he seemed to ignore my questions as if it wasn't all that significant after all). However subst also dumps the html from the template into the wikitext making it harder to follow.
Plugwash23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Wow, I never thought I'd be defending Netoholic. Please read
WP:AUM - Jamesday is likely not answering you because he has lots of things on his hands, and it's been debated to death already. This issue is very real.
Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I have read that page and also its corresponding talk page and some associated revert wars. If the devs really thought this was important don't you think they would have gone through jimbo rather than making fairly vague comments like the one on that page.
Plugwash16:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
del, how lazy can you get? Besides if someone uses a template like this you have to look it up to see what it does, while a simple font-tag is much clearer and cleaner. When programming you also don't make functions for every tidbit, then also don't make a template for every trivial task. It's just stupid. You need only see the font version once to know how it works and if not just keep a copy on your user page. Hey Radiant, don't defend Netoholic and not vote. Defend AND vote. --
MarSch17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, someone should put together a list of all the templates for easy reference and add the colors that use 6 digit codes (eg. color="f0f0f0"). Where can we look up these codes, btw?
NoSeptember13:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, do not use subst: as it obfuscates the source. If you don’t think a particular bit of text should be coloured change it, and if you don’t like the font tag change the templates.
Susvolans(pigs can fly)14:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on.
DES(talk)23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its "value" are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete. --
Corvun 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Categorify. It's a good idea but it's far too big and unwieldy. I'd like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category.
Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: That's pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template's talk page or the fantasy talk page. --
Corvun 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The "fantasy authors" and "list of fantasy authors" should be dropped to just "fantasy authors" and that promoted up one level so it remains.
Courtland 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I've divided the template into "articles" and "categories", with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%.
Keep and correct if needed.
Halibutt 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, still needs trimming. I personally find vertical navboxes to be intrusive and ugly and prefer horizontal ones at the bottoms of articles, but that's a content issue. -
Sean Curtin 01:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but change that godawful color!--
Kross 07:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but might I suggest that they are somewhat overly large? Using abbreviations may help, rather than repeating the phrase "super mario world" five times.
Radiant_>|< 08:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful navigational template. It goes at the bottom of the article, so it's not like it's getting in the way of anything important.
Nohat08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep: I agree on the colors. Is there any way to see the CSS sheets used by wikipedia? ~
Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠ 21:56, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
Keep: Very useful navagation aide. I don't particularly care about the color much.
Fieari 22:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see any reason why to delete these. These pretty much define the purpose of navigational templates. --
Titoxd07:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep Useful.
JtkieferT |
@ |
C ----- 09:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Navigational templates are more useful than categories, since they can list entries in the poper order while categories can only do alphabetical order.
—
P Ingerson(talk)09:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very good tool, although it really needs cleaning up to include SMW2:YI and other things
—
P Ingerson(talk) 13:50, 17 August 2005 (BST)
Forgot to vote Keep. Also, Ingerson, Yoshi's Island IS there. --
A Link to the Past 14:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I don't know how many times i've used this template, but i know its saved me a lot of time searching for various zelda related articles. --
ZeWrestlerTalk00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep both, but change that color (Mario) and make the thing smaller (Mario); it dwarfs some of the smaller articles like
Yoshi Topsy Turvy. --
gakon5(talk) 21:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep both I've said this before on other template pages, a template for a game series is VERY useful, especially for readers who glance over the categories link.
Amren(talk)20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period for comment 16 August to 23 August — 8 daysRemoved from TFD 24 August — 9 days
"The novelty of research or terms used in this article is disputed." This is a rather obscure (and mostly unused) form of dispute resolution, and we already have far too many confusing variations on {{disputed}}.
Radiant_>|< 08:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a perfectly appropriate way to identify cases of alleged original research. Also I don't see how it's a form of dispute resolution, since it simply directs users to the talk page. Thus, unless it actually does overlap with another template, keep. --
Visviva13:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Redirect. The real objection is that it duplicates
Template:original research, which is more clearly phrased, and is named more in template style; compare {cfd} which is lower case throughout. But if someone wants to call it OriginalResearch, I have no problem with that.
Septentrionalis18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. This template is massive, containing a link for every country in a world. Most of the links are red and likely to stay red, because we simply don't need a Status of religious freedom article in countries where it simply isn't article-worthy. It's kinda like having the article
Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union, then having a template with 192 links to Involuntary settlements in (country).
Coffee06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Very subjective box. People have started including their cities arbitrarily. District headquarters in Tamil Nadu or some such list would be more objective. --
Sundar\
talk \
contribs 03:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This might be a good time to
Be Bold! and go ahead and edit the template, and perhaps even rename it. It doesn't sound like a reason to delete the template.
BlankVerse∅14:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Categorify and delete. There's no particular connection (linear series per
WP:CSL) between these that is served better by a template than by a cat. (Or even by both a template and a cat).-
Splash19:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep!. I've used the same argument every time a template for a major film director has come up (and will keep using it). Many of the average vistors to the Wikipedia who will look at one film by a director will also want to look up one or more other films by the same director. Instead of forcing that to be a two step process (either going to a category or to the director's main page), it is much easier to work with a well-designed navigation template.
BlankVerse∅12:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete for consistency. I very much agree with BlankVerse, and the deletion of the other templates does decrease the wiki's navagational functionality. However, if we are voting on this template, there is no reason why Lynch should have one if Spielberg, Hitch and Kubrick are denied one.
The JPS 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Keep pending advanced discussion.
The JPS17:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep Same reson as for the shark template below, interesting that BlankVerse has a strong keep for this and a delete for the shark one. The only different is that there are 350+ species of sharks, but there will never be that many wikipedia articles. I think we need to do something about nav templates, as it is now this is very chaotic and non consistant, I suggest to implement a list of related articles that can be under the 'in other languages' box. Then it will not take much space and can be much longer than a nav template today. Not sure if it can be done with wikimedia today, I asked at
Wikipedia:Bug_report, no answer yet.
Stefan 04:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep For better overview and navigation. --
ThomasK 09:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: There needs to be some policy on director's templates. The wiki should be consistent, and this template shouldn't be kept if Hitch et. al. were deleted. Again, I vehemently agree with the keep votes.
The JPS15:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Keep For ThomasK's reasons and the fact that any sort of easy-to-read template always makes the wiki more user-friendly and presents information immediately. I also urge very, very strongly to reinstate the other deleted director templates, which I felt were very helpful and I was shocked to see them go. It's a shame we have people who actually think that making the wiki less legible is a good idea. KEEP THESE TEMPLATES!!!
Gsgeorge16:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Conditional delete. While I'm unhappy that useful director templates keep being deleted, it's unfair if this template stays and other director templates go. Either delete this template or undelete Spielberg, Hitchcock et al. --
Titoxd22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This is a problem, yes. This TFD has generated quite an interest for the 'keep' camp, and it might be worth continuing it elsewhere to achieve some sort of consistency. Hopefully we can get the other templates reinstated, and the deletionists/anti-template brigade will leave us alone.
The JPS23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Stong Keep. The template aids in user naviagation, conveys information and is compact. "Consistency" can not be a reason to delete this template, since the other director template have only been remove recently, and discussion has only just begun. --
Commander Keane 06:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Categorify and delete for consistency and easier navigating.
Radiant_>|< 16:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Clicking an additional link each time a user wants to switch articles is meant to be easier? Keep the category too: we should maximise the wiki's capabilities. The consistency argument (to which I was a subcriber) is redundant now that there are more keep participants (for a possible undelete and wider policy discussion)
The JPS17:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I can't believe this discuission is even happening. Like all the director templates, this is very useful and hurts nobody. If we're worried about space, just make it horizontal instead of vertical. The deletion of the other director templates was absurd, too.
The Singing Badger16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period for comment 2 August PM to 9 August PM — 7 daysRemoved from TFD 10 August PM — 8 days
Note: Voting suspended.This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through "What links here". The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted.
Note that this
change was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator's
original intention and the tag's overwhelmingly popular application. —
Lifeisunfair04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking for {{seemain}} when they mean {{main}} and it is too much trouble with very little benefit to try and cure everyone of this confusion.
Dragons flight 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I suspect Whatlinkshere entries for a redirected template are created in the target template, thus Whatlinkshere:main probably contains some seemain references. The TfD vote can continue, this problem merely means that all cleanup deletions of redirected templates have to deal with such technical issues. (
SEWilco19:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Last night, when the nineteen articles in question were listed on the "Whatlinkshere" page, {{seemain}} was not a redirect; it contained the TfD notice. As
Radiant indicated, three of the titles (
Germany,
Human and
New Zealand) appeared when users made unrelated edits to the corresponding articles (after I first viewed the "Whatlinkshere" page and began removing the template). —
Lifeisunfair19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Right. A Redirect page does not allow the TfD template, so the apparently-orphaned redirect was replaced with the TfD template. When I reported the templates were orphans those articles were not in Whatlinkshere:Seemain, and appeared when edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (
SEWilco20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))reply
For whatever reason, articles containing {{seemain}} continue to appear on the list (without anyone adding the template). For the time being (until this problem has been resolved), I've restored the redirect. (And if you really stop to think about it, a TfD message in an orphaned template serves little purpose.) —
Lifeisunfair07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I see. The articles which showed in Whatlinksher:Seemain were those which were edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (
SEWilco20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Delete those extra templates #2-#20; where did those come from anyway? As for the first one, I have no objection to the redirect. Templates sometimes get a longer 'whatlinkshere' when articles containing them are 'touched', so for an oft-used template it's not necessarily possible to find all links to it. Try using google as an alternate method.
Comment: The extra templates 2-20 are for multiple references, and will be converted later thus are not part of this TfD. (
SEWilco18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Keep {seemain} and at least 2 through 4 of the others. Useful, and easier to maintain than typing in the same italicized sentence all the time.
Septentrionalis16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep but delete all those starting from {{seemain3}}. We need a template for the plural form. The rest can be done by using {{seemain2|Foo1|Foo2]], [[Foo3]], [[Foo4}}. —
Instantnood 11:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, categorize, and Listify: Another large incomplete navbox. I suppose it is appropriate to its contents that it is also uncommonly bleak, but it is still unneccessary.
Septentrionalis19:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. — My message to the user Septentrionalis. Do not abuse your wiki-rights (one of them being the right to nominate a template for deletion) which you did abuse by ignoring your wiki-obligations (one of them being the obligation to RTF-M - here specifically
-DC=Deletion Criteria). If you have not noticed yet, the incompleteness and bleakness criteria are not listed as valid critera for a template deletion.SorryButAnAbuseMakesMeReallyMad08:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This might be useful, if most of the names were not wrong, thus disseminating misinformation. See the number of redirects in the template. Attempt to make a template do the work of a category.
Keep, why don't you just fix the errors instead of asking to have it deleted?
Keep. Didn't see any redirects in the template, and even if there were I would have edited it. I also think new users and readers find templates easier than categories, so, useful.
CanadianCaesar02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. The "wrong" names are an attempt to simplify the issue. The complicated issues are discussed in the articles and if you are dissatisified with the discussion, please feel free to amend. A useful bunching of topics. Templates and categories can overlap. It's not a crime. Creator vote.
jengod 06:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It looks boring, but it provides a useful array of related items on a given theme. --
Eoghanacht 12:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
Keep. I see no problem having this template. No different in function than
Template:United States. --
tomf688<
TALK> 14:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. VFD is not the place to resolve issues with the content of articles, neither is TFD for resolving a disagreement with the way things are named in a template.
TomerTALK 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly and un-needed/un-wanted template designed entirely for POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling, has appeared on dozens of un-related articles, and clearly must be deleted--
64.12.116.614:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I put it their. I have tryed to cearfully set up
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war to be a NPOV project. Can you give some evidence of POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling? I belive that all the articles the template appears on are related by being about anit-war movments or ideas.--
JK the unwise16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for free speech or discussion.
Agriculture 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Keep Wikipedia may not be a palce for free speech and discussion, but it should be.
Agriculture18:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep in agreement with the ability to discuss opposition to war in an NPOV manner. Further, the identity of the nominator is hidden as the IP address is an AOL multi-user address. Anything nominated anonymously should be removed from here by an admin immediately, just as anonymous or unsigned votes are to be ignored in the consideration of whether or not to delete an item.
Courtland 01:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, having presumed that purpose is to inform, not persuade. (To make this clear to casual observer, I might
suggest renaming the project). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: The point of this template appears to be easy navigation between articles about Beethoven. I don't think it helps particularly, though, for a number of reasons. The list of works calls for completion in order to be useful (because a bagatelle and two piano sonatas--in addition to the symphonies, of course--hardly deserve their own little template), which would not only be quite too huge for a template, but also already available in its right place (
List of works by Beethoven). Listing the symphonies alone might serve a purpose for navigation, admittedly, though, but only marginally. The other articles (i.e. those not about individual works) are all linked from the appropriate section of the main page, like they should be, and as should be enough.
EldKatt (
Talk)
19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
keep: I think this is very useful. I have taken the liberty of adding
List of works by Beethoven to the template, though. If we keep the template, we should probably find a few more of his most prominent compositions to include. --
Arcadian20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, but be merciless in deciding which works get onto the template. It might thus be necessary to junk the template at a later time if such agreement simply cannot be reached. -
Splash06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: I should've clarified this in my original proposal, but I'm only opposed to this template as a general Beethoven-related template, which would be POV-prone and hard to manage, since it can't be exhaustive. I'm quite positive to a specific "Beethoven symphonies" template (and "Beethoven piano sonatas", "Beethoven string quartets" etc, for that matter), though, which seems like a plausible result of the consensus so far. But I very much doubt the possibility of agreeing on a set of notable works for a template like this. Personally, I certainly wouldn't list Für Elise, for example, but I'm sure this would meet some disagreement, by virtue of it being such a famous little piece.
EldKatt (
Talk)
12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete: I find EldKatt's argument completely convincing. There are so many famous works, and we couldn't possibly fit them all in a template of reasonable size.
Opus3316:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm convinced by EldKatt; Arcadian wants "more prominent compositions", but a huge number of Beethoven's works are prominent; I think it would save time to modify Splash's proposal: be merciless and delete. FYI: I created the Beethoven string quartets and Beethoven piano sonatas templates. The only reason I think they are a good idea is because musicians refer to them by opus number: "Piano Sonata No. 21" is mostly known as "Op. 53" or "The Waldstein", and "String quartet No. 7" as "Op. 59 No. 1" or "Rasumovsky No. 1", so the template really does aid navigation. I would not oppose a "Beethoven symphonies" navigation template (although should that include
Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper)?) although I see less of a case for that since the numbering of the symphonies is simpler. I think the template under discussion here is unnecessarily trying to do the impossible. --
RobertG ♬
talk14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, since it would be unmanageable to have all Beethoven's works in this template, and that would be the only reasonable way to proceed with it. I strongly support the idea of templates for subsets of his compositions, and Robert is right about the works being referred to by opus numbers ("hey, wanna get together tonight and play opus 131?" -- that's the way musicians refer to Beethoven's pieces). For completeness and consistency -- though I'm aware of the threat of Emerson's hobgoblins -- we could have templates for symphonies, concertos, incidental music, variations, and anything else by B.
Antandrus (talk)15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period of comment 18 August PM to 25 August PM — 7 days Removed from TFD 31 August AM — 13 days
I suspect this is an attempt to create a template to be used in templates that produce conditional output (I created a template of the same name some time ago, which was deleted last April). I'll ask the user who created the template about this, but there seem to be some others (which, no doubt, didn't work either), specifically
Template:/div=True and
Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True. --
Rick Block (
talk) 17:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
It turns out
Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True does work, and is used in
Template:Canadian City (and has essentially the same content as
Template:hide). Before closing this vote I suggest we wait for comments from the template's creator (
User:BCKILLa - no edits since
August 7). It may well be that
Template:Hide is meant to serve as a less obscurely named pattern for similar templates (in which case, the other same-content templates could redirect to it). --
Rick Block (
talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
delete useless and introduces potential for serious browser incompatibility. Note, there is an alternative,
inote which does the same thing in a different way, just leaving an HTML comment, and which is used for invisible references in text.
Mozzerati
Although the local effect is similar,
template:inote has a completely different function. The use of
Template:Hide (or
Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True) is to conditionally suppress some part of the output of a template. For example,
Template:Canadian City has a parameter Motto which usually appears following a label (Motto:), see for example
Calgary, Alberta. For cities lacking a motto, the label can be suppressed by adding a parameter Disable Motto Link (with the value True), see for example
Burlington, Ontario. The "normal" ouput (without the suppression parameter specified) is of the form <div style="visibility:hidden;">weird junk with curly braces</div>[[Motto]]:</div> (so the div makes the weird junk invisible, but note the second close div in this case is unmatched). With the suppression parameter set to true, the "weird junk with curly braces" turns out to be an invocation of a template like
Template:Hide which expands into another <div> matching the first close div. This makes the initial div apply to the Motto: label, making it invisible. One advantage of this approach is that if there's ever if-then-else syntax added to templates, the invoking template can be fixed without requiring any changes to any of its references. HTML comments do not nest, so there's no way using HTML comments to do precisely the same thing. This is an extremely clever workaround to a limitation of the existing implementation of templates. We could perhaps argue this is too clever, but I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting (nor even discouraging) excessive cleverness in templates. --
Rick Block (
talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep based on Rick Block, though I tend to agree with the excessive cleverness. Once pages start looking like programming code instead of text many editors shy away.
SchmuckyTheCat21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period of comment 19 August AM to 27 August PM — 8 days Removed from TFD 1 September AM — 13 days
Delete, if noone expressed any interest in using it, why have it hanging around? In the end, it will just be replaced by a redesign if someone wants such an infobox and the signs would seem to be that they don't. -
Splash19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see how it can be developed to a useful enough standard to become a great template on its proposed subject. For example, how useful is it to point out those three typical instruments? If each pointed to an article such as "the drum in Christian music" then that would be a different matter, but I don't foresee those as realistic articles. It seems to me that a better solution would be to have one article on Christian Music and put the info in the article, with the instruments wikified as normal, and a see also at the bottom. Quite how Rock n Roll and Hip Hop justify places in a Christian Music template (again, without links to more specific articles, such as Christian Hop Hop) I fail to see. It's essentially a collection of bemusing links that completely fail to deliver a satisfying navigational theme. --
bodnotbod 11:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 9 August to 3 September — 25 days Removed from TFD 4 September — 26 days
Template:R from CamelCase, Template:R from UN/LOCODE, Template:R from title without diacritics, Template:R to decade, Template:R for convenience and Template:R CamelCase
Apparently I missed some. Same reasoning as below.
Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep all and nominate individually.
Courtland 00:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category
Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect.
∞Who?¿?04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. Helpful to select redirects. It might be worth noting that since creation, these templates worked in at least 3-4 different ways. Initially mainly "Whatlinkshere" worked and the text of the template was displayed below the redirect. Since the most recent Mediawiki version, categorization works (again). Personally I think they are good thing to include when a series of redirects are created by bot, e.g.
Redirects from US postal abbreviation. Later, they can easily be identified. -- User:Docu
Request for Comment That accusation requires some explanation. How is the use you mention an example of "abuse" of the template?
Courtland10:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Period of comment 19 August PM to 30 August AM — 10 days Removed from TFD 4 September PM — 15 days
Same reasoning as above, except that I was told this was an exception so I'm listing it separately. Its name is somewhat confusing, to say the least.
Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've not needed to use this yet, but I can see it's utility. In particular, there are terms in biology and medicine and sociology and et cetera that have changed meaning over the decades or centuries, which would be one application of the template.
Courtland 00:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I just came across this scheme for categorizing all redirects to clarify what they redirect to. However, in 99% of all cases that should be immediately obvious from the relevant names, and in others the talk pages should suffice. Few people look at redirects anyway, and attempting to templatize and categorize them all is misguided and serves no real purpose.
Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again? —
MichaelZ. 2005-08-28 15:45 Z
Keep all for now and nominate individually; some I'd vote to delete, some to keep - but I don't want to consider them as a group. I make liberal use of some of these templates and do see a point to them in the form of descriptive classifications of redirects.
Courtland 00:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category
Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect.
∞Who?¿?04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think categorizing these is a good thing, and if a question arises why a redirect is there, and it falls under one of these categories, it provides a good reference point. "Why does is there a redirect? Oh, I see -- its because of _______"
IanManka06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, although some borderline cases might be better nominated individually. -
Sean Curtin 04:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep most. For example, it is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wikipedia or portions of it. There are similar arguments about a few other "R from..." templates. A few might be merged, but IMHO voting must be done on those individually. --
Paddu19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
OK, so "R from misspelling" is not included here. Replace "misspellings" with "alternative capitalisation" in my comment above. --
Paddu19:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep (or replace with a better way) Categorizing redirects is a good thing. I'd prefer something in the syntax of #REDIRECT inself, but the technique serves to document the reason for the redirect. Redirects have been abused all over the place (speaking as someone who recently decoupled
feature film from
film and
agricultural subsidy from
agricultural policy). BTW
feature film had been a redirect for over two years...
66.167.137.18201:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC).reply
keep appreciate the cleanup effort, but this is useful and used. Thanks, Radiant, for providing an opportunity for this demonstration of the consensus to keep these. Thanks!
JesseW09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep as above. -- User:Docu
Keep, though some of them could be merged. There might be too many to choose from now. --
Kaleissin 20:00:15, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
To be fair,
User:Radiant! gave reasoning in the discussion below this one, and this one is included in the discussion above, as there is no Tfdu template yet (umbrella template like {{Cfdu}} or {{Cfru}}), so this one is just used as a "pointer" for the tfd's.
∞Who?¿?16:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is useful in highlighting common misspellings (which I probably misspelled :) ) and there are cases where someone labels something as an incorrect spelling (can't screw that spelling up) which is actually an alternate name (for instance "canvas" and "canvass", the latter an uncommon correct spelling of certain defintions of the former). Useful redirect descriptor.
Courtland 00:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category
Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect.
∞Who?¿?04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)reply
comment: Meaning, in my opinion, that without the "whatlinkshere" functionality, there's little hope of editing the referring articles to remove the misspelled linkage.
Courtland 14:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wiikipedia or portions of it. --
Paddu19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I created this. And if you're not supposed to use it on VfD, it certainly can be useful in other parts of Wikipedia that involve votes, such as simple yes/no polls. Besides, why do you think "VfD" isn't even in the title of this template?
Also, now that I've read the policy prohibiting such tally boxes on VfD sub-pages, you should know that I only added the vote bar as an ad hoc measure, since so many opinions were registered on that VfD subpage that I felt I had to add it, to make it unnecessary for other users and admins to have to read through all those opinions (almost 200 on that particular page) to simply track the general scenario. Denelson8306:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Apparently under the criterion that since Wikipedia is not a democracy this template is useless or so. No cause for speedy though methinks. --
MarSch12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I speedied it because it's something that should never be used on wikipedia anyway. But good point: I forget that admin percentages are down relative to all the new folks, so you can't just ask the next guy over to take a look. (So adminship is temporarily a big deal , Very very annoying :-/). Here's an example of the template in use, and I've left it undeleted so you can pick it apart.
Delete, but only if such a consensus is reached via the TfD process; this is not a speedy deletion candidate. Kim: I recommend that you formally enter your vote (and allow another admin to close the debate). —
Lifeisunfair 14:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Vote changed. (See below.) —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
You've probably heard this over and over and over, but
Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this is not a vote in the first place.(It's a consensus finding poll). Even then, VFD, TFD and CSD don't override every other policy or practice, else wikipedia would grind to a halt.
Kim Bruning 14:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (PS. Specifically,
WP:NOT was written and reviewed by 100s or even 1000s of wikipedians over a period of years, while this tfd poll is conducted by a handful of wikipedians over a couple of days. Figuring out where consensus lies is left as an excersize to the reader ;-) )
Kim Bruning15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, this is the prerogative of all Admins, to turn their adminstrative power into the ability to impose their will on the community. An admin should not function as a judge-jury-and-executioner, but as a member of the community who is no more or less special in the validity of their opinions as any other non-admin. Figuring out whether you have crossed the line into inappropriate behavior unbecoming of an admin is left as an excersize to the reader. :(
Courtland 15:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't use admin perogative, like you said, I'm just an editor with a couple more buttons. In this case, there is sufficient (actually overwhelming) consensus to delete, because of existing policy, which is supported by thousands of wikipedians. Does that help?
Kim Bruning19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Invoking majority rule regarding the "votes" to delete this template when you've been touting that this is not a democracy doesn't help, no.
Courtland 20:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, in this case I'm referring to the inertia of getting all those people to change their mind, there was never any vote for WP:NOT, AFAIK.
Kim Bruning23:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
1. Please consult a dictionary, and you'll find that the word "vote" doesn't necessarily imply that a decision will be reached via a numerical count. Used as a noun, "vote" can mean "a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue" or "a means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot." Used as a verb, "vote" can mean "to express one's preference for a candidate or for a proposed resolution of an issue; cast a vote" or "to express a choice or an opinion." Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition —
Lifeisunfair16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Ah, wikipedia jargon, my fault. A vote in wikipedia parlance is a
majority vote (the root of all evil), while a poll is an
opinion poll, which is a nescessary evil.
Kim Bruning
I didn't refer to this discussion as "a vote"; I unambiguously referred to "your vote" (id est, your formal expression of preference for a proposed resolution of the issue). This page is the template equivalent of
Votes for deletion, so please don't lecture me on "Wikipedia parlance." Please also refrain from arguing the widespread belief that VfD is misnamed, because it isn't.
And even if I had used the term in the context that you suggest, I still wouldn't have been incorrect; "vote" ("the act or process of voting") != "majority vote." —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
2. Yes,
WP:NOT was written and reviewed by a multitude of Wikipedians, but so were the deletion policies that you've unilaterally decided to circumvent. I believe that this template should be deleted, but not until the correct process has been followed. I was under the impression that you had realized your error, but it's clear that I was mistaken. I respectfully request that you once again undelete the template (and leave it undeleted, pending the outcome of this debate). —
Lifeisunfair16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually the CSD was only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well, so a lot of folks think that the current CSD rules are pretty weak. On the other hand, the fact that wikipedia is a consensus community is a given based on the fact that we're a
wiki. We've all accepted that rule by editing here, basically. :-) So rather than unilateral circumvention, a better term in this case might be might be kilolateral uncircumvention. Let's not have TFD dictate wikipedia policy.
Kim Bruning19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Firstly, I referenced "the deletion policies," not any particular deletion policy. Secondly, you claim that the
CSD were "only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well," and that "the current CSD rules are pretty weak," but who are you to decide this, and why haven't you raised these issues on the
talk page (to which you've yet to post a single remark)? And as I note below, the concept that this template violates the spirit of
WP:NOT is your personal belief, and should not be imposed upon the entire community. —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry but at no point does this template state that the result must be followed - it is merely an indicator. I don't want to cause a fuss, but you are almost violating
WP:POINT on this, and you have violated the TfD process. Because there are a few people wanting it to be undeleted I am going to do so - call it partial consensus if you will.
violet/riga(t)19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, it Counts Votes, that sucks quite enough. It's probably ok to undelete it temporarily, but you'll have to watch it carefully to make sure it doesn't get transcluded anywhere. (And explain to and warn every person who does so).
Kim Bruning19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't recall seeing any consensus that this template "should never be used"; that's based entirely upon your arbitrary assessment of its potential applications and your equally arbitrary interpretation of
WP:NOT. Any template can be misused, but that doesn't mean that we should employ the pre-emptive measure of deleting all of them. —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete although it is pretty, and shouldn't have any effect on the closing admins decision, I think it would only make users vote in order to sway the decision, w/o reading the discussion. The discussion is the whole point, and if its going one way or another, maybe its becuase users changed their votes, and you would never know that if you stared at the pretty bar and didn't read the discussion.
∞Who?¿?19:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have two distinct reasons for keeping this. Reason number 1: While I agree, not a democracy, I also feel that there should not be any prohibition against trying to summarize the state of a complicated discussion. In my mind that is likely to involve counting votes (for good or ill, we all do pay attention to how much support each side has). That said I wouldn't endorse using it on any but the most complicated couple percent of votes. Perhaps having a guideline that there must be 50+ participants before it can be used. Reason number 2: I feel this comparison bar is a neat hack that is likely to be useful in article space. Large parts of the real world are a democracy and certainly Wikipedia talks about that. We could use this to show the outcome of real world votes. Not to mention comparisons where there are two elements but which are not neccesarily votes. Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress? Size of Earth vs. Size of Sun? Men vs. Women as CEOs? Okay, so maybe all of those aren't necessarily good ideas, but I believe the widget could be useful even if there was/is consensus for never using it on VFD.
Dragons flight 19:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I did not think of its use in that manner. I think it maybe useful for showing outcome of things outside of wiki. Although I somewhat agree on large participation discussions, it may help see where we stand on the issue, I still have reservations about using for Wiki related discussions/votes, per my comments above.
Iff it is only used for external outcomes, I would probably support. I would say that it could be used on some Wiki related discussion if there were guidelines, but I feel that borders
m:instruction creep.
∞Who?¿?20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Just to explain bit better why deleting the template is useful in this case: Basically, every time this template is transcluded, it violates
WP:NOT, or, (if you're actually a sane human being), it violates basic wiki-principles. So by keeping it either blanked or deleted, you kill a large number of birds violations with one stone. Everyone can at least blank a page, so I'm not sure why the first people to spot this problem hadn't already done so.
Perhaps becuase some people realize that their personal opinions and interpretations are not sacrosanct, and that following the correct process (instead of imposing said beliefs upon the entire community) might facilitate productive discourse, thereby bringing to light alternative perceptions and previously overlooked possibilities. —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing. Everyone has this power, so that means you too. Apply sane reasoning to the problem, and negotiate what you want. or just go ahead and do it :-) You actually applied some of that power today, where you got me to temporarily undelete the template and subst an example here. But note the reasoning above as well, that's why I'm keeping it deleted for the rest. If you'd like a copy of the template someplace if you need to examine it further for some reason, give me a yell. :-)
Kim Bruning19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
All of your arguments are based upon the (contested) claim that the template unequivocally violates
WP:NOT. What gives you the authority to issue such a proclamation? —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Wikipedia is not supposed to be run by votes, no, but this template doesn't pretend that it is. It is simply a tool used to highlight the results of a vote. I'm afraid that voting is commonplace and very much a part of Wikipedia, however - you're taking place in one now. Voting happens all over and is not always a bad thing - it can show consensus much easier than lots of text can. Note that I've not voted on whether this should be deleted, so this isn't a comment on that.
violet/riga(t)19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
If there are votes cropping up all over wikipedia, then there is a significant danger of it failing to be a pedia for very much longer. There was a reason not to have votes, remember? Anyway, I'm glad you're taking over this particular tfd. Have a nice day.
Kim Bruning20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, but rename to something less specific (such as {{ratio bar}}), and avoid using the template in most (if not all) voting situations (especially those in which more than two options exist). I initially voted (yes, voted) to delete, but
Dragons flight has convinced me that this template has legitimate applications. —
Lifeisunfair01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment from some of the input from Kim above, it's pretty clear to me that this is an example of Kim's violating the
WP:POINT guideline, in particular when he says things like "Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing" which seems to imply that his actions here are meant in part to teach us a lesson about how Wikipedia should be run.
Courtland01:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm actually an individual who favours precision over nebulous scenarios, and this vote bar is an expression of my desire for precision. The term "consensus" on Wikipedia really needs to be rigourously defined. And nowhere in this template did I say that the numbers it shows are binding. It is only an indicator, nothing more. Admins do not, and must not, have to rely on it alone to decide how to close a poll. If they want to read through all of the opinions, then there is nothing I can do about that. All I did was create a simple indication of what the scenario looks like at the present time. Denelson8301:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment the recent discussion and series of polls on extending the CSD drew quite a bit of participation and comments, as well as a number of votes. Peopele were fairly claer, IMO, that they were reluctant to extend the CSD overly, and that they expected the current CSD to be treated rather strictly, not bent. This was not a speedy deletion candidate.
DES(talk)02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
comment. Had a chat with Denelson83 today. He pointed out uses for the template outside wikipedia: namespace (for example:
1995 Quebec referendum). Ok, well I agree with that (as also per Lifeisunfair and Dragons Flight). The template will have to be carefully gaurded against abuse in the wikipedia: namespace though. As long as people do that, I'm ok with it.
Kim Bruning03:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is just another thing that will mislead people into thinking it is. --
Cyrius|
✎03:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. Should be deleted for the exact same reasons as was
Template:Vfd votes. -
Sean Curtin 03:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)Weak keep if renamed. As long as we try to keep this out of the realm of VfD and other WP votes and polls, it's fine by me. As a nitpick, I think that the bar itself ought to be shorter in height; it seems almost like a space filler on my screen. -
Sean Curtin 22:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
After seeing it in use in an article, I am now further opposed to this template. It's one of those cases there a picture is not worth a thousand words, and in fact, doesn't provide a better "picture" than the raw numbers or percentages. If it could be done as a bar graph it fould be helpful, but not as this template.
BlankVerse∅07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong delete, see
WP:CENT for two polls regarding usage of such templates, to which people were heavily opposed.
Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Here. Let me give you another way to use this vote bar. I will use it as a summary to list reasons given for keeping this template contrasted with reasons given for deleting it. Do not interpret it as anything more than an innocent summary. And I sincerely hope this isn't an example of a
WP:POINT. Denelson8308:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
{{vote bar
|Option 1=Reasons to delete | Voting for option 1=7 | Percent for option 1=(77.8%) | Color for option 1=Red | Header color for option 1=#fcc
|Option 2=Reasons to keep | Voting for option 2=2 | Percent for option 2=(22.2%) | Color for option 2=#0c0 | Header color for option 2=#cfc
}}
Violates "WP is not a democracy" doctrine
May influence opinions
It simply IS a template
Bad choice of name
Looks bad where it is used
Gives illusion consensus is not used
May get overused, causing general clutter
Other uses besides internal votes
Acts as a summary
Rename to {{ratio bar}} as per Denelson83's suggestion. While I agree for a number of reasons that its use in VfD pages would be at best unhelpful, there are a number of other reasons to want to use such a bar. My only worry about the template is that the use of '▲' (U+25B2 Black Up-Pointing Triangle) might cause some problems for older browsers, but that's a question of the template's comntenet, not its apprpriateness.
Caerwine22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
My 2 cents: I don't think admins should speedily delete anything while their VfD lag time still lasts, unless they can point to a specific
WP:CSD rule. To quote
WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority [...] it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." (I see the template has already been undeleted, but I still want to be clear on this issue.) (No vote on the current template) --
IByte23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: A way we could discourage abuse of this template would be to make sure it is only inserted into appropriate articles with the "subst" qualifier. Denelson8323:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. As a very visual person, something like this would always help me understand arguments better. Its not just for policy, and I don't see what this has to do with being a democracy or not.
Páll(Die pienk olifant)23:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Eh... wait. How would a two-colored bar help you understand arguments? Summaries of arguments people are using are always helpful and we should certainly use them more, but they don't need two-colored bars.
JRM ·
Talk23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Some people are more easily able grasp information in a visual manner than a textual one. There's no harm is using graphics where appropriate and there are situations where I feel this template would be appropriate.
Caerwine00:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
That's not quite what I asked—I don't understand what information is being grasped in this way. How many people voted for A and how many for B, yes, obviously. But Páll said it would help him understand arguments better, and that I don't quite get. In case of the ratio bar, it seems obvious you could drop the whole bar and keep just the summaries (mirrored on either side of the page if you like). Counting the "percentage" of reasons offered isn't meaningful in any sense. If this is something you "just can't get" if you're a textual person, I apologize; I'm not trying to belittle or disparage arguments here.
JRM ·
Talk02:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
This is what I mentioned earlier, if anyone is using a visual aide to get the feel of where the discussion is going, it could be inaccurately persuading their vote on the discussion. If I do not understand a particular discussion, or do not feel like getting involved by reading the entire thing, than I don't get involved! The visual meter destroys the whole point of the discussion. I would only want such a bar to stay around if NOT ever used on Wiki related discussions, ie. presidential polls and such.
∞Who?¿?06:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Userfy. OK, it's just a template and I mean it no harm, but I'm not going to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the underlying issue. If Denelson feels strongly about stewarding it, he should adopt it in his userspace. It's not even good on polls, as these are supposed to gauge whether an idea meets overwhelming (dis)approval, so you avoid arguing about things nobody really wants to argue about. If there isn't, you don't need a colored bar to tell you that's the case (as it'll be blindingly obvious), you need to poll on something else. Ad hoc, schmad hoc. Yes to attempts at clarifying large, unclear opinion dumps. No to attempts at highlighting where the percentages lie. And we really should go back to the drawing table on the whole "Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's run by consensus" thing, as consensus is hard while democracy is easy. I get the feeling people aren't seeing any added benefit to consensus (or aren't seeing consensus at all) and are thinking this democracy thing looks pretty good in other places, so why not use it here?
JRM ·
Talk23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. Even if this isn't ever used on VFD (and, if it is, it should be used only in extremely crowded VFD discussions), it has numerous applications in the rest of the encyclopedia, as noted above. Any time it is necessary to visually display a ratio between two figures, this template enables it to be done easily. Also, I feel that Kim Bruning's speedy delete was highly inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia policy.
Firebug00:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Oh dear. So according to you I didn't just apply policy properly, I actually violated it. I think I just arrived here from an alternate universe or something, this is so wierd :-/ . *Sigh* very well, could you point out which policy you think I violated?
Kim Bruning19:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I am now getting an uncomfortable amount of mutually contradictory information regarding this policy.
This Wikipedia Signpost article includes a tally of keep vs. delete votes for the Wikipedians for Decency WikiProject. I attempted to apply the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" doctrine to it by removing the tally, and here's the message I got from the editor of the Signpost:
"As I understand it,
Template:Vote bar was rejected because it was unneeded, and it assumed, in many cases, that there was a specific spot between keep and delete. All I did is report on what the unofficial vote tally was. That is not wrong, nor is it a double-standard. If you wanted to create your own page where you kept tallies on controversial votes, that would be fine.
"In any event, please do not edit the Signpost unless to fix an inaccuracy or a typo. I at least deserved the respect of having you talk to me on my talk page or in the Newsroom, rather than finding out on a Discussion page 3 days after you made the change.
ral315 05:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"
With this message, I am now seriously opposing the policy against internal vote tallies on Wikipedia. There is clearly a hypocritical atmosphere here, and it isn't fair.
COMMENT er, what does this have to do with VfD? IT's a bar comparing two amounts out of a whole, could be used anywhere... like in the election pages comparing the amounts a Democrat or a Republican gets.
132.205.3.2015:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. I know I'm probably on the wrong side of the crowd here, but there are other uses for this template than a VfD vote. Please consider that before deleting this template. Misuse of the template doesn't mean the template is useless. --
Titoxd23:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete.. As per others, this has the potential to be used to undermine
WP:NOT a Democracy by giving a certain person's interpretation of discussion the 'color' of an official ballot poll. Also:
Encourages the fallacy of representing discrete data (numbers of votes) as if they were continuous in nature. A bar graph in column form would be better, pictograph ideal.
Doesn't seem to adequately represent contests with more than 2 parties where a plurality 'wins' the contest.
All stated "legitimate use" examples would be equally or better served by using Microsoft Excel, Apple Keynote, or similar Open Source packages to generate a chart suitable to the article and upload as an image. Template programming mechanics are simply not well-suited to this use. (Seems like hammering a nail using a banana)
Excuse me, since when is Microsoft Excel or anything else by Microsoft an Open Source package? Or did you mean an open source package of similar functionality?
DES(talk)19:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes I realize that most of those are criticisms calling for improvement rather than deletion, but I think that these shortcomings detract from any legitimate use such that it cannot justify the potential for negative use per the first reason.
Kwh 19:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP This thing is neat... now if only I could figure out how to use it :\. Whether or not majority votes are banned or whatever has nothing to do with this template. Just doing it for fun on a talk page (as it obviously has its uses there) is by itself enough reason to KEEEEEEEPPPRyan NortonT |
@ |
C20:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)reply
{{vote bar
|Option 1=Good reasons to delete | Voting for option 1=1 | Percent for option 1=(10%) | Color for option 1=Red | Header color for option 1=#fcc
|Option 2=Good reasons to keep | Voting for option 2=9 | Percent for option 2=(90%) | Color for option 2=#0c0 | Header color for option 2=#cfc
}}
Keep Can be misused, and often shouldn't be used. Might be useful on occasions, and I see no benefit to deleting it. And
WP:WIN does not allow admins to delete articles that contravene it. And the definition of "vote" as "majority vote" is fascinating, and ridiculous. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that. I guess Kim might argue that it still has thorns, but that's his problem :-).
[[smoddy]]22:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. Useful for many purposes, especially for summarising closed VfD discussions. --
Misza13 17:40:58, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Keep. Cool!
Vacuumc 02:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Period of comment 21 August AM to 3 September AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 13 days
Delete: A convenient and systematic way to crowd the article namespace with suggestions for editors, which (last I checked) were deprecated. Also, if you're going to add this template to a page, you might as well just fulfill the suggestion and skip the extra step. --
Smack (
talk)
15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, agree with the above. -
SimonP 15:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Might be reasonable if placed on a talk page. Presumably should be placed only by an editor who is not sure what the proepr subcat is. weak keep if restricted to talk pages and properly documented.
DES(talk)16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, but only if the template is moved from every article it is currently on to the articles' talk pages. If not moved, then delete.
BlankVerse∅21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. The template is used at the bottom of the article, onobtrusively. The chemistry category now has 172 articles. If I knew the appropriate subcategory for these articles, I would go ahead and take care of it myself. The category has had the "cleancat" tag, on its talk page, since May 1.
Maurreen(talk)22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is a good idea but it's better taken from the category (and WikiProject:chemistry) than by sticking a template on each related article and asking 'can someone else please help'.
Radiant_>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Questions: For the sake of curiosity, how does this template have less value or make any more of a problem than, for example, the stub or wikifacation templates, when those needs are evident in the articles? And for the sake of efficiency, can anyone suggest a more effective method to accomplish the same thing, especially for those categories without a project? For example,
Category:Computing got
Template:Cleancat on 22 June. I requested help with
Category:Computing at
Talk:Computing on 27 July. The main cat still has more than 150 articles.
Maurreen(talk)01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Your time would probably be better spent recategorizing than slapping a template on each article. I don't really believe there is such a thing as overpopulation of a category. And if someone doesn't know where to categorize an article, we would want them to put it in a general category so that someone more knowledgable could come along and recategorize it properly. —
Mike 02:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think putting a template on the category would be useful (e.g. "this category is getting too large, please move items to its subcats"). Cleaner-uppers could more easily work from there.
Radiant_>|< 13:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
comment: 150 articles ... that is certainly not an example of overpopulation of a category in my opinion. On the other hand, 1,500 would present more of a problem.
Courtland 01:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
It usually requires significant expertise in a subject to expand a stub, and it can take a lot of work to wikify an article. IMHO, fussing with categories is fairly quick and requires only superficial knowledge. What we need is a tag placed in the category page that marks it as too large. --
Smack (
talk)
02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)reply
It might be useful to generalize this to accept a parameter to the category. Or perhaps simply a template which says: This article is not categorized specifically enough. Or perhaps not. As with article text, people will come along and fix this. Eventually. --
MarSch17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete Too specific. Not very useful. -- Reinyday, 15 August 2005
Delete. The template {{verylarge}} should be used as a general solution; this template places the category into the "cleanup" cateogory
Category:Overpopulated categories.
Courtland 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't seem to be used by any pages in the main namespace. --
Ixfd64 06:08, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
Delete - one should be able to put a template on the category page that needs cleaning out, which would then automatically propagate as a note on the pages categorized there. Doing this manually, and for one specific category only, is not the right way. --
Joy [shallot]22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment I have acted on the suggestion of the template in those cases where it had been placed on articles. I have also placed a note on the Talk page of the template asking whether it has now completed in the service it was designed to perform. I still think that this can be deleted, but it is stated to perform a service and I'd like to determine whether suporters for its being kept believe it has in fact served its purpose and is no longer required in the clean-up arsenal.
Courtland01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment We get a lot of people placing articles into the general chemistry category because they know it is chem-related, but a lot of people are hesitant to categorise it any further (we have hundreds of sub-categories!). As such, it is useful. My concern is, how are the people (who are unfamiliar with chem) to know that this template exists? If there are plenty of people who would use it, we should keep it. If it's too obscure/hard to find, then delete it.
Walkerma22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
This template is overkill and an inappropriate adoption of the future events template. There's nothing "speculative" or unexpected about construction plans. If construction has occurred, there's nothing dramatic that should happen. The information contained in this article is essentially useless. The articles of every country in the world, every world head of state, and every living person covered in this encyclopedia is in more danger of being outdated that some building under construction. --
Jiang11:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete agree with the above. Any good article should already make clear what items are just proposals. -
SimonP 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, there is speculation, in
Burj Dubai's case. --
WikiFan04Talk 22:56, 25 Aug 2005 (CDT)
Delete It must be clear from the text that it is discussing something that will happen in the future. If it is retained it should be toned down to be less visually intrusive.
Saga City 06:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. An article about proposed construction is not speculative. The construction is proposed, and the proposition itself is worthy of encyclopedic note. --
Mm3517322:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Used by
Template:Taxobox sectio entry as an inserted template. The content used to be [[Section (biology)|Section]] but is now just Section. I do not see the purpose of this template in its current state, the text can just be subst in the other template.
∞Who?¿?09:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
keep. It is part of a series of templates for the taxobox that allow the taxobox to be more easily copied to other language 'pedias. If the nominator had contacted any of the editors before making the nomination, they would have know that and probably not nominated it. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I only nominated it because it only contains plain text with no variables now. It seems that can be subst instead. Also, I did contact both editors after the nomination, which is standard practice. I would have contacted before if it were using a set of variables but seemedunused obsolete in that format.
∞Who?¿?19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Er, I can't see how this is useful, all it does is add a category to the main namespace to do with editing, and on a minor issue - the order of categories?!?!?.
Dunc|
☺11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep It is used by
Pearle and
Whobot when doing mass re-cats. It checks for bad interwiki links, and labels them for human intervention. (I think I got everything, Beland could explain better).
∞Who?¿?20:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. This template is in active use. It may seem simple, but it's a convenient way to find all the articles in recent runs where a bot couldn't properly edit an article. These articles need manual attention so they can be automatically edited in the future, and so that they comply with Wikipedia style standards. It's not the sort order of the categories that's checked, it's that the interwiki and category and stub tags can be parsed properly, and that they are at the end of the article. Parse failures (which are what is tagged) are usually an indication that the article is messed up, often that it needs to be split into multiple articles. I usually get around to fixing these within a few days of doing a run, but I do need some way of finding them. --
Beland01:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
In which case, you create a list of affected pages and dump it elsewhere - don't use the categorisation system, which is for something else entirely!
Dunc|
☺16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Mentioned in the discussion on {{Seemain}}, it seems prudent to separate the discussions since people probably have different opinions here. Delete these, there are overly many of them and they're not very pointful.
Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep 2, 3, and 4. For lists larger than 4 I think there needs to be considered a split to the article section to which the list is attached. In cases where such a split is not warranted, then either a section "see also" or reference to a sectionized "see also" would be useful. In fact, the creation of a {{seemain4plus}} could be considered which would be identical to {{seemain4}} except it would include a reference to the page's "see also" section using an internal bookmark-link to that section via
#See also.
Courtland 00:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The claim about {{main2}} accomodating any number of text links is based upon {{main2|Article1|Article2]], [[Article3]], [[Article 4}} (
SEWilco02:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Comment: For the record, I strongly object to
SEWilco's attempt to "cancel" this vote (which happens to pertain to templates that SEWilco created) because
Radiant neglected to engage in the virtually pointless task of inserting {{tfd}} tags that no one will ever see. The {{ccm}} example (below) is a different story, but I doubt that the outcome (keep) is going to change. —
Lifeisunfair17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: If there should be no notification then have the TfD process modified. Perhaps speedy deletion of templates would save a lot of pointless consideration. (
SEWilco20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC))reply
I don't claim that "there should be no notification," but the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into unused templates doesn't notify anyone of anything.
Radiant's failure to complete this busywork is a flimsy excuse to "cancel" a debate (particularly one concerning templates of your own creation). Wikipedia rules generally should be followed, but common sense should prevail over a miniscule technicality. —
Lifeisunfair21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Of course I did! They had to be orphaned before the {{tfd}} tag could be added (per your insistence). For the record, the article count was as follows:
I see that you just reverted my edits. Do you not understand that this disrupts legitimate articles by inserting a message that most readers won't understand (because there's no obvious "template" below the text)? —
Lifeisunfair22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)reply
What is your understanding of "notification" which requires hiding messages? You also did not mention your older similar "minor" edits. (
SEWilco22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC))reply
The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. You minor-edited articles to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates. How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all? (
SEWilco23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC))reply
"The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor."
Yes, and that's precisely what I did. My edit summary for all ten templates was "tfd tag," and I didn't mark any of these edits as minor.
"If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead."
And yet, when I moved {{seemain2}}'s TfD notice to the talk page, you reverted. Evidently, you're determined to disrupt fifteen articles via the insertion of a contextually nonsensical message. And over what do you wage this battle? A template (which you created, of course) that's patently redundant with {{main2}}. I mean, do you even deny that?
"You minor-edited articles"
The above instructions refer to the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into the templates, not edits to the articles that contain them! I marked these as minor, because the replacement of one template with another that generates virtually identical output has no major effect on the article.
"to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates."
That was the point! As I've explained, this was to avoid disrupting the articles via the insertion of a message that makes absolutely no sense to readers (because it refers to a seemingly nonexistent "template"). Earlier in the month, I removed a few other instances, which I stumbled upon when attempting to orphan {{seemain}} — the parent template (which you blanked and proposed for deletion after an earlier TfD consensus was to redirect to {{main}}).
"How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all?"
You hid the TfD notices. And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted. I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process. (
SEWilco02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC))reply
"You hid the TfD notices."
I'm the one who added them! The fact that they aren't displayed as prominently as you would prefer (id est, disrupting numerous articles without conveying any useful information) doesn't mean that they're "hidden."
"And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted."
I honestly don't know what the above statement is supposed to mean.
"I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process."
Redirect 2-5 and Delete the rest For brevity's sake it would best if the core title was {{main}} and not {{seemain}}. Once one gets past five articles I can't see the utility. {{main4|Article1|Article2|Article3|Article 4}} has the advantage of being more intutitive and shorter than the kludge involving {{main2}}. It has the additional advantage that if it is decided to add a conjunction to the main series of templates, it won't break. {{seemain10}} is an interesting attempt at designing an adaptable template, but until or unless templates can be designed that will gracefully accept a variable number of arguments, I can't say I like {{seemain10}}'s approach.
Caerwine21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: I prefer the text on {{seemain}} and they are not equivalent; except to those who don't mind having "See Main article", with inconsistent capitalization, all over the place.
Septentrionalis02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Delete. This type of message intimidates me every time I'm sent it. Is it really necessary to send the uploader of an allegedly-copyrighted image such a harsh warning every time such an image is put on
WP:PUI? Denelson8322:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
It's not intended to be intimidating, it's intended to give the uploader a chance to defend her image. Keep, but please reword if you find it harsh or intimidating.
Septentrionalis22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, such a defence would be utterly pointless, as "fair use" is still a very touchy issue here. As well, it's messages like this that indirectly led to the
RFC against me. Please note that at the time I write this, my wikimood is reading -6 (ornery). Such minor criticism left on my talk page could send it even lower. Denelson8322:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I've seen IfD's for other things than copyright. However, if filing this has reduced your Wikistress, good; I trust editing the template will take care of the rest of it.
Septentrionalis22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. If it's harsh (and frankly I dislike the box around it; it could just be a regular paragraph) then make it less so. But it's only fair that the uploader of an image be informed of its being deleted, so this template is entirely necessary. --
Finlay McWalter |
Talk 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think most Wikipedians have thick enough skin to endure a teeny bit of criticism. However, it could use a de-uglification (simple text would be nice). —
Dan |
Talk22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep because it is commonly used and useful, and saying you're in a bad mood isn't an excuse for it,
Denelson83.
Superm401 |
Talk 22:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
While it's ugly and fairly unpleasant to recieve, this template is one of the few that gets nominated here that actually serves a useful purpose.
→Raul654 22:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I find this factual, not harsh. If you do reformat or reword this, similer changes should probably be made to {{idw-cp}} which i use far more often.
DES(talk)00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep and Edit so as to be less obtrusive. There is little need for a message any more obtrusive than the {{TFD}} message. This template seems quite an overkill and I can see it's deep-sixing wikimood (or elevating wikistress) with each application. As an aside, I think that the {{CFD}} and {{VFD}} notices could be significantly reduced in size/invasiveness without reducing their impact or noteworthiness as well.
Courtland 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) input altered from "delete" to "edit"
Courtland14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. Revise it, if you feel like it, but something like this is required for notifying the uploader of an image listed on
WP:IFD per the image deletion guidelines. I know why this requirement exists and I'm still not convinced it is strictly necessary, but as long as the requirement to notify is in place, we need some template to put on uploaders' talk pages. --
MarkSweep07:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep. The only change that I'd make to the template is to add a second parameter to list the reason why the image was nominated for deletion.
BlankVerse∅07:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep as it's quite useful. (added without signature, but determined to be from
User:ScribeOfTheNile on consulting page history)
Keep. Reword it if you have to. But having a template around makes it easier to warn uploaders about upcoming image deletion. -
Mgm|
(talk) 04:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as it is useful for an uploader to be informed if an image they uploaded is IFD'd. --
Wikiacc(talk) 00:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Note: I tried to make it a little more pleasant. I made it a slightly more pleasant color (prisons are often painted a pale green as it is a relaxing color), added a "thank you", made the font readible (why so small?), and got rid of the big bad bold "WARNING". I think it still serves its purpose, and won't give anyone a heart attack. --
Fastfission22:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Are we all meshugga? Crazy people who shouldn't be let out of the box? Stay on the farm, don't bother the nice people, now come back inside for din-din and take our meds?
I can't believe I'm reading a proposal to delete a tool to provide notice that something has been proposed to be deleted! Oy! and oy again! And on what grounds? It intimidates me, it's too harsh -- so, of course, there is nothing at all that we can do except stick the thing in the trash! Never mind that Somebody might actually want to know!
Tsa on this crazy Project and tsa on you crazy people! This goes beyond bad-faith; you want to take the tools away from the workers! Maybe you don't like the way those tools are used? You can't talk to other people, ask them maybe to use the tool another way? All you can do is smash and destroy! What next, you'll start
Wikipedia:Words for Deletion so people can't even say what they think!? —
Xiong熊talk* 22:41, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
I've observed this template, and feel it to be redundant with {[tl|test1}} through {{test3}}. I also feel it is worded a bit harshly and can be construed as
biting the newbies. It also causes confusion when a person edits the section on a page this template is added to. --
Blu Aardvark | (talk) |
(contribs)04:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Keep, doesn't strike me as harsh (which is a fixable problem anyway), and naming the article involved is a good idea (especially for shared IPs). I don't see what the problem with section-editing would be. ~~ N (
t/
c)
21:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply