The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I think you were using "inexperienced user" as a name to call me, whether you did it on purpose or not. It's not a valid reason to not like the template. It is not a reason why the template is not needed.--
Chuck Marean00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I have no idea what part of my comment could be construed to be a
personal attack; I imagine that Chuck, believing inexperienced user to be a personal attack, means to upbraid me for concurring in Quiddity's assessment. Even as I am inclined to agree with Quiddity's comment (which surely isn't a personal attack), it should be observed that when one "votes" per nom, he/she is generally endorsing the underlying reasoning and not necessarily the fashion in which a nom is made (again, though, I can't apprehend any malignancy in Quiddity's nom).
Joe04:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Because he added inexperienced user that made it sound like you were name-calling. Per nom, whatever it means, sounds like you were agreeing with all of his reasoning.--
Chuck Marean00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't see that inexperienced user need be understood to have any pejorative connotation; rather, I think Quiddity used it to differentiate between your good faith edits and those that might be made intentionally to disrupt (namely, by a longtime user).
Joe01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The template wasn't making it worse, it was giving it a link to the tutorial that didn't say it was part of the tutorial--
Chuck Marean00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
keep. It includes a link to the Introduction, which is really part of the Tutorial. Also, it's good for use on pages that are not the tutorial itself whose readers should know about the Tutorial. It could also be used in the tutorial, since it includes the Introduction.--
Chuck Marean22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Templates should not be forked (split into divergent variations). If you feel the original template is flawed, fix it, don't fork it. However, as we've mentioned on your talk page in the past, please propose significant changes on the talk page of any template or major wiki-space page, first. -
Quiddity02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
That sounds like other comments you have made trying to boss me around. I don't need your permission, and neither does anybody else. --
Chuck Marean00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment It's not really bossing to ask one to comport his/her editing with extant policies and guidelines that reflect the considered judgment of most project participants, or, at the very least, having been gently rebuked by several other editors, to discuss edits prior to implementing them. I am all for one's being bold, but, at the end of the day, each of us requires the community's participation to continue here; where it is the consensus of the community that an editor is doing more harm than good to the project and is altogether recalcitrant in the face of repeated entreaties, an editor likely will be asked by the community to leave. In any case, this discussion really isn't TfD-related, and so I'll not extend it further.
Joe01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No, it is not I, it's my friend, who hates accounts, and we do edit the same articles, more or less, since we have the same interests, and we're in class at the same time, sometimes, so we use the computers to do something during boring lectures.
Ccccccccccc11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
template:cfdnotice does not have the same fuction as this template. So from what you are saying, all we need do is document it, or put it up for discussion at CfD... which is what is happening now.
Ccccccccccc11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A redirect would be helpful, but what caused the fork in the first place, oldxfd seems to be pretty standardized, was cfdend foked over updating oldcfd? —
xaosfluxTalk17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Please update the
WP:CSD page so it doesn't list any tags we're not supposed to use. I used this because it was on the page. --
Rob16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I certainly concur in Freddy's reasoning, but the template is useful inasmuch as age is updated automatically; it is not the intellectual infirmity or
dyscalculia of other editors about which I am concerned, but, instead, the frequency with which articles that include temporal information aren't updated, if only because it is rather easy to overlook small details (to be sure, an age given in an infobox is considerably more evident than one in article text, but I think oversight is nevertheless possible).
Joe19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong keep: I don't see much firm validity in FuriousFreddy's argument, why not make it easy? People don't come to Wikipedia to do arithmetic, and the template does certainly serve a role.
Orabomb21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This template survived a TfD on April 22 (
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_22#Template:Age), and not much has changed since then (apart from the ages of some people). Even if this were a first nomination, I'd still vote keep because it is potentially useful and not causing any harm. --
ais523 14:27, 3 July 2006 (
UTC)
Delete and Forbid articles or infoboxes from ever writing the current age of someone. As almost all of the instances of this template are inside "Infobox musical artist" or the like, which currently does not display the age, this template is being used very little. In general I don't think that an encyclopedic article, which in theory should last a long time, should ever state a person age explicitly. Remember some day Wikipedia may be printed - and it would not make sense to state a person's age. The objections above of "I know how people can make mistakes" and "let's make it easy" would make sense if this template was used - which it isn't and shouldn’t be. The objects in the previous TfD also failed to realize that while it is nice to automate this function, they didn’t consider that this function shouldn’t be needed in the first place.
Jon51316:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment FWIW, I agree entirely with Jon, but, as those in the previous TfD, I took as axiomatic that the community approved of the provision of an age, for example, in articles. Jon's analysis is almost exactly that which I'd have given, and I'd certainly support deletion if I didn't believe a consensus for the provision of an age to exist; here, though, I think it only appropriate that we assess the usefulness and propriety of the template for its stated purpose, assuming arguendo that that purpose is encyclopedic (with the imprimatur of the community). The discussion with respect to such issues as Jon raises likely ought to take place on a more general level and at a page to which more editors are likely to come; in such a discussion, I'd certainly agree most stridently with Jon.
Joe16:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It doesn't bloody matter if people can't do simple arithmetic. Sometimes, if you are in a hurry maybe you don't want to thik that if this page/user was last edited/born on, January 28th 2005, not everyone wants to sit and think, "hm, when was this last edited?" and whatnot. I agree with Orabomb, and what he said:
Keep, but... restrict from uses such as "age" fields in infoboxes. My reasons are (a) ages have a tendency to change every year or so, making print versions awkward, and (b) I'm sure people who read articles can do simple arithmetic. The template does have some use, such as for userpages where people write stuff like, "Hi! I'm a x-years-old college student..."--
Fallout boy23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep I don't see any problem from keeping this template. It's not bad, and could be usefull for lots of articles! I'd say we keep it! --
Jort22712:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, this shouldn't be used. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia ... what good is it when the printed edition finally comes around, you buy the book, and you're reading it a few years from now and it's woefully out of date? We shouldn't be in the habit of listing someone's current age, only the date of birth. This template gives a quality of temporal immediacy that is out of place in a proper encyclopedia. --
Cyde↔Weys20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete or at least keep out of article space. Because age shouldn't be mentioned as a dynamic. It also creates a problem for after the subject is dead...
grenグレン02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I think you were using "inexperienced user" as a name to call me, whether you did it on purpose or not. It's not a valid reason to not like the template. It is not a reason why the template is not needed.--
Chuck Marean00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I have no idea what part of my comment could be construed to be a
personal attack; I imagine that Chuck, believing inexperienced user to be a personal attack, means to upbraid me for concurring in Quiddity's assessment. Even as I am inclined to agree with Quiddity's comment (which surely isn't a personal attack), it should be observed that when one "votes" per nom, he/she is generally endorsing the underlying reasoning and not necessarily the fashion in which a nom is made (again, though, I can't apprehend any malignancy in Quiddity's nom).
Joe04:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Because he added inexperienced user that made it sound like you were name-calling. Per nom, whatever it means, sounds like you were agreeing with all of his reasoning.--
Chuck Marean00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't see that inexperienced user need be understood to have any pejorative connotation; rather, I think Quiddity used it to differentiate between your good faith edits and those that might be made intentionally to disrupt (namely, by a longtime user).
Joe01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The template wasn't making it worse, it was giving it a link to the tutorial that didn't say it was part of the tutorial--
Chuck Marean00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
keep. It includes a link to the Introduction, which is really part of the Tutorial. Also, it's good for use on pages that are not the tutorial itself whose readers should know about the Tutorial. It could also be used in the tutorial, since it includes the Introduction.--
Chuck Marean22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Templates should not be forked (split into divergent variations). If you feel the original template is flawed, fix it, don't fork it. However, as we've mentioned on your talk page in the past, please propose significant changes on the talk page of any template or major wiki-space page, first. -
Quiddity02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
That sounds like other comments you have made trying to boss me around. I don't need your permission, and neither does anybody else. --
Chuck Marean00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment It's not really bossing to ask one to comport his/her editing with extant policies and guidelines that reflect the considered judgment of most project participants, or, at the very least, having been gently rebuked by several other editors, to discuss edits prior to implementing them. I am all for one's being bold, but, at the end of the day, each of us requires the community's participation to continue here; where it is the consensus of the community that an editor is doing more harm than good to the project and is altogether recalcitrant in the face of repeated entreaties, an editor likely will be asked by the community to leave. In any case, this discussion really isn't TfD-related, and so I'll not extend it further.
Joe01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No, it is not I, it's my friend, who hates accounts, and we do edit the same articles, more or less, since we have the same interests, and we're in class at the same time, sometimes, so we use the computers to do something during boring lectures.
Ccccccccccc11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
template:cfdnotice does not have the same fuction as this template. So from what you are saying, all we need do is document it, or put it up for discussion at CfD... which is what is happening now.
Ccccccccccc11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A redirect would be helpful, but what caused the fork in the first place, oldxfd seems to be pretty standardized, was cfdend foked over updating oldcfd? —
xaosfluxTalk17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Please update the
WP:CSD page so it doesn't list any tags we're not supposed to use. I used this because it was on the page. --
Rob16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I certainly concur in Freddy's reasoning, but the template is useful inasmuch as age is updated automatically; it is not the intellectual infirmity or
dyscalculia of other editors about which I am concerned, but, instead, the frequency with which articles that include temporal information aren't updated, if only because it is rather easy to overlook small details (to be sure, an age given in an infobox is considerably more evident than one in article text, but I think oversight is nevertheless possible).
Joe19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong keep: I don't see much firm validity in FuriousFreddy's argument, why not make it easy? People don't come to Wikipedia to do arithmetic, and the template does certainly serve a role.
Orabomb21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This template survived a TfD on April 22 (
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_22#Template:Age), and not much has changed since then (apart from the ages of some people). Even if this were a first nomination, I'd still vote keep because it is potentially useful and not causing any harm. --
ais523 14:27, 3 July 2006 (
UTC)
Delete and Forbid articles or infoboxes from ever writing the current age of someone. As almost all of the instances of this template are inside "Infobox musical artist" or the like, which currently does not display the age, this template is being used very little. In general I don't think that an encyclopedic article, which in theory should last a long time, should ever state a person age explicitly. Remember some day Wikipedia may be printed - and it would not make sense to state a person's age. The objections above of "I know how people can make mistakes" and "let's make it easy" would make sense if this template was used - which it isn't and shouldn’t be. The objects in the previous TfD also failed to realize that while it is nice to automate this function, they didn’t consider that this function shouldn’t be needed in the first place.
Jon51316:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment FWIW, I agree entirely with Jon, but, as those in the previous TfD, I took as axiomatic that the community approved of the provision of an age, for example, in articles. Jon's analysis is almost exactly that which I'd have given, and I'd certainly support deletion if I didn't believe a consensus for the provision of an age to exist; here, though, I think it only appropriate that we assess the usefulness and propriety of the template for its stated purpose, assuming arguendo that that purpose is encyclopedic (with the imprimatur of the community). The discussion with respect to such issues as Jon raises likely ought to take place on a more general level and at a page to which more editors are likely to come; in such a discussion, I'd certainly agree most stridently with Jon.
Joe16:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It doesn't bloody matter if people can't do simple arithmetic. Sometimes, if you are in a hurry maybe you don't want to thik that if this page/user was last edited/born on, January 28th 2005, not everyone wants to sit and think, "hm, when was this last edited?" and whatnot. I agree with Orabomb, and what he said:
Keep, but... restrict from uses such as "age" fields in infoboxes. My reasons are (a) ages have a tendency to change every year or so, making print versions awkward, and (b) I'm sure people who read articles can do simple arithmetic. The template does have some use, such as for userpages where people write stuff like, "Hi! I'm a x-years-old college student..."--
Fallout boy23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep I don't see any problem from keeping this template. It's not bad, and could be usefull for lots of articles! I'd say we keep it! --
Jort22712:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, this shouldn't be used. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia ... what good is it when the printed edition finally comes around, you buy the book, and you're reading it a few years from now and it's woefully out of date? We shouldn't be in the habit of listing someone's current age, only the date of birth. This template gives a quality of temporal immediacy that is out of place in a proper encyclopedia. --
Cyde↔Weys20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete or at least keep out of article space. Because age shouldn't be mentioned as a dynamic. It also creates a problem for after the subject is dead...
grenグレン02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.